£237 
IA/3B6 


$C    12    T21 


EXCHANGE 


}Li.oHA^ 


The  Sale  of  Liquor  in 

the  South 


The  History  of  the  Development  of  a  Normal  Social 
Restraint  in  Southern  Commonwealths 


BY 


LEONARD  STOTT  BLAKEY,  A.  M. 

Sometime  Schiff Fellow  in  Columbia  University 

Associate  Professor  of  Economics  and  Sociology 

in  Dickinson  College 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR   THE    DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1912 


The  Sale  of  Liquor  in 

the  South 


The  History  of  the  Development  of  a  Normal  Social 
Restraint  in  Southern  Commonwealths 


BY 


LEONARD  STOTT  BLAKEY,  A.  M. 

Sometime  Schiff  Fellow  in  Columbia  University 

Associate  Professor  of  Economics  and  Sociology 

in  Dickinson  College 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 

FOR  THE   DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 

IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1913 


'•■IX  : 


PREFACE 


This  work  owes  its  origin  to  a  suggestion  which  eame 
to  the  writer  from  his  instructor,  Professor  Franklin  H. 
Giddings  of  Columbia  University,  while  pursuing  grad- 
uate courses  of  study  in  that  institution. 

Within  a  period  of  less  than  seven  months  four  state 
legislatures  in  the  South  had  passed  state  prohibition  laws.1 
At  that  time  the  American  people  were  awakening  to  the 
fact  that  they  were  about  to  witness,  as  they  supposed, 
another  "wave  of  temperance"  sweep  over  the  coun- 
try. Popular  magazine  writers  were  vying  in  their 
efforts  to  find  an  explanation  for  what  seemed  to  them  a 
marvelous  change  in  temperance  sentiment  that  had 
taken  place  in  the  South  within  a  short  period  of  time. 
They  told  the  story  in  parts,  presenting  a  hazy,  if  not 
confusing  picture.  So  many  and  so  varied  were  the 
causes  suggested  for  the  general  adoption  of  state  pro- 
hibition, and  so  little  constructive  and  authoritative  work 
had  been  done  that  it  was  not  long  before  it  became  ap- 
parent that  a  well-defined  problem  was  presented.  Some 
time  elapsed,  however,  before  it  became  evident  how 
large  was  the  task  that  has  required  several  years  of  re- 
search. 

This  study  is  a  part  of  a  wider  investigation  the 
writer  is  making.  Fourteen  southern  commonwealths 2 
furnish  the  field  for  the  problem  as  defined  and   pre- 

1  The  laws  were  approved  on  the  following  dates :  Georgia,  August 
6,  1907;  Alabama,  November  23,  1907;  North  Carolina,  January  31, 
1908;  Referendum  election  held  May  26,  1908;  Mississippi,  February 
19,  1908. 

'  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia,  Kentucky,  Louisiana,  Mary- 


sented  at  this  time.  It  is  the  hope  of  the  writer  that 
he  will  be  able  to  finish  later  studies  of  the  other  parts  of 
the  country,  following  the  general  lines  pursued  in  the 
present  work. 

Statistics  compiled  from  the  United  States  Census 
Reports,  from  the  Reports  of  the  different  state  depart- 
ments of  the  southern  commonwealths  and  from  the 
county  local-option  elections  together  with  statutory 
enactments  assembled  from  the  Session  Laws  of  the 
same  commonwealths  have  been  the  most  important 
sources  for  the  material  used  in  this  study,  and 
librarians  and  their  assistants  have  been  a  constant 
source  of  support.  Thanks  are  due  to  the  officers  of 
the  following  libraries :  The  Library  of  Congress,  the 
New  York  Public  Library,  the  New  York  Lawyers' 
Club  Library,  the  Columbia  University  Library,  the  Bos- 
ton Public  Library,  and  the  Massachusetts  State  Library. 
Officials  and  private  persons  in  nearly  every  part  of  the 
country,  who  have  responded  to  questions  as  to  facts, 
have  contributed  materially  to  this  study;  and  special 
obligation  is  due  Professor  Frederick  J.  Turner  of  Har- 
vard University,  and  Professors  Henry  C.  Metcalf  and 
George  F.  Ashley  of  Tufts  College  for  very  valuable 
suggestions  and  criticisms  in  the  later  stages  of  the 
study,  and  Mr.  Clarence  W.  Foss  of  Tufts  College,  for 
assistance  in  connection  with  the  maps. 

Leonard  S.  Blakey. 
Winchester,  Mass.,  April,  1912. 

land,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Texas, 
Virginia,  West  Virginia. 


254195 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface     3 


CHAPTER  I 
The  Statement  of  the  Problem  ...  9 

CHAPTER  II 

Progress  in  the  Repression  of  the  Saloon  .        .11 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Dispensary  Movement  in  the  South   .        .        16 

CHAPTER  IV 

Hindrances  of  Federal  Law  to  Prohibitory  En- 
forcement      20 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Negro  as  a  Factor  in  the  Prohibitory  Move- 
ment   26 

CHAPTER  VI 

Conclusion      .        .        .  • 33 

5 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 


TABLE     I.     The    Progress    of    Liquor    Legislation    in 

Southern  Commonwealths      .         .         -39 

TABLE  II.  Examples  of  the  History  of  Liquor  Legis- 
lation for  Four  Counties  .         .         42 

Plates  1,  2,  3  and  4.  Distribution  of  No-License  Area 
in  Southern  Commonwealths,  1868, 
1877,  1887  and  1912     .         .         facing     44 

PLATE     5.     Distribution    of    Dispensary   Counties    in 

Southern  Commonwealths  .         .         45 

TABLE  III.     The   Net   Monthly   Profits   of   the   South 

Carolina  Dispensary       .         .         .         .46 

Table  IV.     The  Record  of  the  Biennial  County  Vote 

on  License  in  Arkansas      ...         47 

Plate     6.     Graphic    Representations   of  the  Biennial 

County  Vote  on  License  in  Arkansas      .     48 


Table   V.     Election  Statistics  in  Ten  Maryland  Coun- 
ties   


49 


Table  VI.     Legislation  Relating  to  the  Sale  of  Liquor 

in  the  South  .  .         .         .         .51 

7 


CHAPTER  I 
The  Statement  of  the  Problem 


Lord  Kelvin,  in  a  lecture  delivered  May  3,  1883,  ob- 
served that  "  No  real  advance  could  be  made  in  any 
branch  of  physical  science  until  practical  methods  of  nu- 
merical reckoning  of  phenomena  were  established."1 

Some  sixteen  years  later  Professor  Henry  W.  Farnam 
asserted  that,  "  The  same  remark  applies  with  equal  perti- 
nence to  social  science."  "  We  can  make  no  advance,"  he 
continued,  "until  we  can  measure  our  phenomena  in  such 
a  way  as  to  be  able  to  institute  fair  comparisons  between 
different  times,  different  places,  different  classes  of  indi- 
viduals."" Professor  Giddings  finds  social  phenomena  to 
be  of  the  nature  which  preeminently  call  for  precise  or 
quantitative  study  by  the  statistical  method.  Their 
nature  is  such  that  they  can  be  handled  as  are  the  facts 
of  other  sciences. 

The  halting  pace  of  progress  in  the  social  sciences  can 
be  largely,  "attributed  to  our  failure  hitherto  to  compre- 
hend a  great  process  of  social  evolution  which  has  been 
going  on  under  our  eyes,  and  which  already  has  been 
numerically  described  in  statistical  reports,  the  full  sig- 
nificance of  which  we  have  not  yet  quite  apprehended."3 

Through  the  discovery  of  such  a  field  of  untouched 
material  this  study  became  possible.  The  inquiry  has 
been  especially  difficult  from  the  fact  that  detailed  in- 
formation had  never  been  collected.4  The  data  neces- 
sary for  the  present  investigation  had,  therefore,  to  be 
specially  gathered.  The  difficulty  of  the  problem,  how- 
ever, has  not  prevented  a  full  summary  of  the  whole  field 
of  statutory  legislation  in  the  fourteen  commonwealths 
from  the  beginning  to  April  1,  1912. 

The  inquiry  resolves  itself  into  the  following  ques- 
tions : 

1  Lecture  on  "  Electrical  Units  of  Measurements  "  at  the  Institution 
of  Civil  Engineers,  reported  in  Nature,  vol.  xxviii,  p.  91. 

'"Some  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem",  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  lxxxiii,  p.  644  (May,  1899). 

'  "  Social  Self  Control ",  Political  Science  Quarterly,  vol.  xxiv,  p. 
580-81    (December,  1909). 

4  Three  studies  had  been  made  of  the  movement  in  three  different 
commonwealths.  These  did  not  treat  the  subject  along  the  lines  pur- 
sued in  this  study,  but  fortunately  contained  facts  which  could  in  two 
cases  be  used  as  sources.  These  studies  are :  H.  A.  Scomp,  King 
Alcohol  in  the  Realm  of  King  Cotton  (Chicago,  1888)  ;  H.  A.  Ivy,  Rum 
on  the  Run  in  Texas  (Dallas,  1912)  ;  and  W.  H.  Patton,  "  Prohibition 
in  Mississippi,"  in  Mississippi  Historical  Series,  vol.  x,  p.  181. 


i.  How  have  southern  commonwealths  dealt  with  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  ? 

2.  Why  have  they  abandoned  the  saloon  as  a  distri- 
buting agency  over  so  great  an  extent  of  their  territory? 

3.  Has  the  dispensary  eliminated  the  difficulties  ex- 
perienced with  the  saloon  ? 

4.  Is  it  probable  that  the  South  will  allow  the  enforce- 
ment of  local  and  state  laws  to  be  hindered  by  federal 
law? 

5.  Finally,  has  the  presence  of  the  negro  in  the  South 
been  the  chief  cause  for  bringing  about  state  prohibi- 
tion? 

In  approaching  the  solution  of  these  problems  the 
writer  has  endeavored  to  free  his  mind  from  any  precon- 
ceived bias;  he  has  refused  to  take  any  position  that 
could  not  be  established  by  facts  gained  in  an  inductive 
study. 

First  the  writer  sought  to  ascertain  the  actual  extent 
of  the  no-license  area  in  the  prohibition  commonwealths 
and  those  contiguous  to  them,  prior  to  the  enactment  of 
the  state  prohibitory  laws.  Only  fragmentary  data  had 
been  collected  for  counties  prior  to  the  organization  of  the 
State  Anti-Saloon  Leagues.  Early  in  1908,  requests  were 
sent  to  the  Superintendents  of  the  State  Anti-Saloon 
Leagues  of  the  United  States  for  facts  as  to  the  distri- 
bution of  no-license  counties  on  January  1,  1904,  and  the 
changes  that  had  taken  place  since  that  date.  This  data 
was  presented  in  a  map,  which  was  first  published  in  the 
Circle  Magazine*  The  map  later  appeared  in  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League  Year  Book  for  1909.  This  map  showed 
that  the  prohibition  movement  in  the  South  could  not 
possibly  have  been  of  cataclysmic  character  as  other  tem- 
perance movements  have  been.  It  rather  indicated  that 
it  was  the  culmination  of  a  long  period  of  development 
confined  to  southern  territory  and  more  particularly  to 
the  Lower  South.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  Okla- 
homa and  Indian  Territory,  both  territories  at  that  time, 
and  Kansas,  a  prohibition  state  since  1880,  the  no-license 
area  was  almost  completely  confined  to  the  territory 
south  of  the  Ohio  River  and  of  the  State  of  Missouri. 
The  problem  from  this  point  was  to  trace  the  no-license 
area  back  to  beginnings,  if  such  could  be  found. 

6  The  Circle  Magazine  (New  York),  1908. 


IO 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


Statutes  and  official  reports  are  the  important  sources 
for  this  study,  and  the  results  arrived  at,  are  based  upon 
a  summary  from  the  facts  thus  collected.  This  unwieldly 
mass  of  statutory  material  has  been  presented  by  means 
of  maps  and  charts  in  the  belief  that  it  may  be  more 
intelligible  to  the  general  reader  than  it  would  be  in 
the  form  of  a  series  of  extended  catalogues  of  statutory 
enactments.     For  the  student  interested  in  a  more  in- 


tensive study  of  the  prohibitory  movement  in  the  South, 
the  detailed  list  of  statutes  and  official  reports  from 
which  most  of  the  data  for  this  study  was  collected  is 
found  in  Table  VI.,  p.  51.  In  Table  II.,  p.  42,  is  pre- 
sented in  tabulated  form  the  legislation  in  reference  to 
the  liquor  traffic  for  four  counties  as  it  was  taken  from 
the  Session  Laws. 


CHAPTER  II 


Progress  In  The  Repression  Of  The  Saloon 


The  legalized  distributing  agency  for  alcoholic  liquors 
in  the  South  up  to  1891"  was  the  saloon.  A  history  of 
the  repression  of  the  liquor  traffic  chiefly  involves  there- 
fore the  methods  used  to  repress  this  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors  at  retail.  In  the  present  chapter  we  shall  con- 
fine our  attention  to  the  history  of  the  legislation  in 
regard  to  the  saloon.  A  history  of  the  dispensary  as  an 
agency  for  the  distribution  of  alcoholic  liquors  will  be 
given  in  Chapter  III. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  DATA 

Table  I  embodies  a  summary  of  the  progress  of 
liquor  legislation  in  the  fourteen  southern  common- 
wealths. The  first  step  in  the  movement  directed  toward 
the  repression  of  the  saloon,  as  will  be  seen  by  Item  No. 
i,  was  to  distinguish  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors 
from  other  transactions  as  a  traffic  worthy  of  a  higher 
discriminating  tax.  The  increase  in  the  amount  of  the 
tax  has  been  gradual  in  every  commonwealth,  until  in 
later  years  the  license  tax  became  prohibitive  in  sparsely 
settled  localities. 

Of  more  importance  for  our  problem,  however,  are  the 
early  dates  and  the  character  of  the  first  no-license  areas 
as  indicated  in  Item  No.  2,  Table  I.  A  better  example  of 
a  general  country-wide  "  like-response  to  the  same  stim- 
ulus," absolutely  unaffected  by  imitation  or  any  extraneous 
force  cannot  be  found.  We  have  here  a  situation  of  first 
importance  in  the  interpretation  and  explanation  of  the 
steady  growth  of  no-license  area  in  southern  common- 
wealths. Localities  in  order  to  gain  prohibition,  peti- 
tioned the  legislatures  to  pass  special  acts  prohibiting  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  within  the  areas  specified  in 
their  petitions.  An  area  thus  defined  by  legislation  was 
generally  a  circle,  measured  in  miles  radius  from  a 
particular  point.  No-license  area  gained  in  this  way 
will  be  termed  "  local-prohibition-through- special-legis- 
lation." 

Item  No.  3,  Table  I  shows  that  about  the  period  of  the 
origin  of  these  special  acts,  and  even  earlier  in  Missis- 
sippi, the  legislatures  referred  proposed  local-prohibition 
measures  to  the  people  for  decision  at  the  polls.  Local- 
prohibition-through-special-legislation  with  the  referen- 
dum article  affixed  as  a  second  method  of  legislation,  we 

1  Item  13,  Table  I. 


shall  term  "  optional-prohibition-through-special-legisla- 
tion."2 

Prohibition  gained  by  either  of  these  two  methods 
was  local  prohibition,  not  local  option.  Local  option 
implies  merely  the  right  of  popular  vote;3  it  does  not 
imply  an  actual  exercise  of  the  right.4  Between  local 
prohibition  and  local  option  the  popular  mind  does  not 
distinguish.  The  two  terms  are  practically  synonymous 
in  the  minds  of  most  people,  but  the  distinction  is  vital. 
In  "local-prohibition-through-special-legislation"  there 
is  no  option.  In  "optional-local-prohibition-through- 
special-legislation"  there  is  no  option,  once  the  refer- 
endum vote  is  taken.  In  either  method  there  is  no 
prospect  of  reversal  after  one,  two,  three  or  four  years. 
With  local  option  the  conditions  are  different.  A  con- 
stant right  of  popular  decision  at  the  polls  is  given. 
There  are  restrictions  upon  this  right.  The  elections 
cannot  recur  more  often  than  specified  periods5  and 
they  are  limited  naturally  to  civil  divisions.  Items  Nos. 
2,  3,  6,  7,  8,  9  and  10  of  Table  I,  show  that  as  time  pro- 
gressed there  was  a  general  tendency  toward  the  in- 
crease of  the  area  involved  in  the  election.  Plates  Nos. 
1,  2,  3  and  4  show  the  size  and  the  number  of  the  pro- 
hibition areas  involved  at  the  various  periods.  On 
these  plates  we  may  see  to  what  effect  the  method  of 
local-prohibition-through-special-legislation  was  used  in 

the  South. 

The  conflict  in  the  liquor  fight  is  more  acute  and  far- 
reaching  than  in  most  of  the  spheres  of  human  interest 
which  government  has  entered.  This  strife  is  constantly 
aggravated  by  the  continual  recurrence  of  local-option 
elections.  The  administrative  efficiency  in  enforcement 
is  generally  one  of  decided  laxness  after  the  passage  of 
a  local  no-license  ordinance  by  a  narrow  majority.     These 

*  The  history  of  the  use  of  these  two  methods  in  gaining  prohibition 
in  two  typical  counties  of  each  of  the  two  commonwealths  which 
depended  largely  upon  this  method,  is  given  in  the  Appendix  to  this 
chapter. 

*  Following  Rowntree  and  Sherwell,  The  Temperance  Problem  and 
Social  Reform  (London,  1899),  p.  25. 

*  For  example,  since  1800  one  hundred  and  fifty-five  county  local 
option  elections  have  been  held  in  Michigan.  During  this  period  sixty- 
nine  counties  have  voted  on  license.  The  other  fourteen  counties  have 
never  exercised  this  right. 

5  For  example,  in  Michigan,  two  years ;  in  Missouri,  four  years. 

II 


12 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


difficulties  are  largely  avoided  with  the  local-prohibition 
method  of  legislation.  "A  county  or  town  cannot  be 
moved  by  some  transient,  local,  personal,  or  political 
pressure  to  reverse  its  prohibition  status.1  It  needs  a 
state  legislative  enactment  for  that,  and  the  great  ma- 
jority of  the  representatives  in  the  legislature  would 
jeopardize  their  political  lives  by  championing  such  a 
measure."2  The  officials  from  Governor  to  constable 
would  be  known  as  prohibitionists  under  another  type  of 
anti-liquor  legislation.  No  party,  no  society,3  no  organ- 
ization of  any  kind  can  claim  credit  for  originating  the 
plan  of  local-prohibition-through-special-legislation  or 
for  developing  it.  As  a  study  of  Plate  No.  i  shows, 
it  evolved  out  of  experience.4 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  PLATES 

The  fourteen  southern  commonwealths  comprising  the 
territory  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  Commonwealths 
of  Oklahoma  and  Missouri,  the  Ohio  River  and  the 
Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  were  chosen  for  this 
study  because  in  every  commonwealth  the  method 
of  local-prohibition-through-special-legislation  was  em- 

1  The  possibility  of  neglecting  to  fully  appreciate  the  significance 
of  the  use  of  the  repeal  in  this  special-local-legislation  method  of 
the  South  has  been  kept  constantly  in  mind  in  the  prosecution  of  this 
study.  Mississippi  was  the  first  commonwealth  to  be  investigated. 
After  the  special  laws  had  all  been  collected  it  was  found,  in  plot- 
ting the  areas  upon  a  map,  that  the  repeals  were  quite  evident  in 
the  period  from  1865  to  1875.  In  this  period  local  prohibition  was 
granted  to  nine  (9)  areas  of  one  mile  radius,  twenty  (20)  areas  of 
two  miles  radius,  eighteen  (18)  areas  of  three  miles  radius,  two  (2) 
areas  of  four  miles  radius,  fifteen  (15)  areas  of  five  miles  radius,  and 
to  one  county.  During  the  same  sessions  local  prohibition  was  re- 
pealed for  three  (3)  areas  of  one  mile  radius,  four  (4)  areas  of  two 
miles  radius,  two  (2)  areas  of  three  miles  radius,  one  (1)  area  of 
four  miles  radius,  five  (5)  areas  of  five  miles  radius,  and  for  one 
county. 

This  was  without  question  the  most  active  period  of  repeals  in 
the  history  of  any  of  the  fourteen  commonwealths.  Since  this 
period  fell  within  the  "  Carpet- Bag  Period"  of  Mississippi,  it  was 
suggestive  in  the  early  stages  of  the  study,  but  it  amounted  to 
no  more  than  a  suggestion.  It  might  be  well  to  add  that  in  the  first 
year  of  the  "reconstruction"  legislature  (1876)  local  prohibition  was 
granted  to  five  (5)  areas  of  one  mile  radius  and  four  (4)  areas  of  two 
miles  radius.  In  the  same  period  local  prohibition  was  repealed  for 
four  (4)  areas  of  one  mile  radius,  six  (6)  areas  of  two  miles  radius, 
four  (4)  areas  of  three  miles  radius,  and  five  (5)  areas  of  five  miles 
radius.  The  repeal  is  of  little  significance  in  the  prohibition  movement 
in  the  South. 

2  H.  A.  Scomp,  "  Local  Prohibition,"  in  the  National  Prohibitionist, 
April  9,  1908,  p.  10. 

3  Item  No.  12  of  Table  I  and  Plate  No.  3  shows  what  had  been  accom- 
plished before  the  public  temperance  education  movement  began. 

4  In  commenting  upon  the  prohibition  movement  editorially,  the  Green- 
wood, S.  C,  Index  stated  in  August,  1909,  that  the  movement  had 
"  been  a  great  solid  movement  of  the  people  without  the  aid  of  a 
leader.  .  .  .  The  thing  resolved  itself  into  shape.  '  Time  brought  it 
forth,  the  numbered  months  being  run.' " 


ployed  as  a  method  of  repressive  liquor  legislation.5 
This  method  is  peculiar  to  the  South.  The  record  of 
the  growth  of  no-license  area  under  this  method  of  leg- 
islation in  the  fourteen  commonwealths  is  plotted  by 
means  of  circles  on  Plates  Nos.  1,  2,  3  and  4.  The  data 
used  in  the  construction  of  the  circles  was  compiled  from 
the  Session  Laws  of  the  different  commonwealths.6 

The  legislation  of  the  optional-no-license  type  could 
be  traced  only  in  so  far  as  indications  of  the  results  of 
the  referendum  elections  appeared  in  the  Session  Laws. 
This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  Georgia,  a  commonwealth 
fully  abreast  of  her  neighbors  in  this  movement,  but  one 
which  employed  the  second  type  of  no-license  legislation 
(optional-prohibition-through-special-legislation),  seems, 
as  is  indicated  on  Plate  No.  1  and  to  some  extent  on  Plate 
No.  2,  to  be  lagging  behind  in  her  efforts  to  rid  her 
territory  of  the  saloon. 

The  no-license  areas  indicated  by  circles  on  Plates  Nos. 
1  to  4  are  accurately  located  within  the  county.  The 
area  within  the  circles,  then,  is  actual  no-license  territory, 
and  the  area  within  the  county  not  enclosed  within  a 
circle  is  license  territory. 

The  reasons  for  indicating  the  density  of  the  negro 
population  are  given  in  Chapter  V.  In  the  same  chapter 
are  found  the  reasons  for  choosing  January  1, 1868,  as  the 
date  for  the  first  map. 

Item  No.  6,  Table  I,  shows  that  on  January  1,  1877, 
the  date  of  second  map,  five  commonwealths  had  gen- 
eral township  local-option  laws  on  their  statute  books, 
while  nine  had  none.  This  date  marks  approximately 
the  time,  so  far  as  it  can  be  determined,  of  a  general 
adoption  of  local  option  as  a  new  method  of  legislation 
supplementing  the  special-legislation  policy.  The  special- 
legislation  method  was  so  generally  used  and  demands 
for  local  prohibition  were  so  many,  that  the  new  method 
was  introduced  largely  to  do  away  with  the  excessive 
amount  of  legislation  which  tended  to  block  the  progress 
of  the  usual  legislative  enactments.7 

5  See  Item  No.  2,  Table  I. 

6  A  detailed  list  of  the  sources  used  for  this  study  will  be  found  in 
the  General  Appendix. 

7  For  example,  in  North  Carolina  in  two  annual  sessions,  the  session 
in  which  the  general  township  local-option  law  was  enacted  and 
the  session  previous  to  it,  the  legislature  granted  local  prohibition  to 
forty-three  (43)  areas  of  one  mile  radius,  ninety-three  (93)  areas 
of  two  miles  radius,  three  (3)  areas  of  three  miles  radius,  and 
fifty-four  (54)  areas  of  four  miles  radius,  making  a  total  of  3961-5/7 
square  miles.  During  these  same  two  sessions  optional  local  prohibi- 
tion was  granted  to  fifteen  (15)  areas  of  one  mile  radius,  thirty- 
nine  (39)  areas  of  two  miles  radius,  and  five  (5)  areas  of  three  miles 
radius,  making  a  total  area  of  678-6/7  square  miles  and  an  aggregate 
area  of  4640-4/7  square  miles.  During  these  two  sessions  local  pro- 
hibition was  repealed  for  one  area  of  one-half  mile  radius,  one  area 


PROGRESS  IN  THE  REPRESSION  OF  THE  SALOON 


*3 


A  similar  analysis  with  reference  to  the  county  local- 
option  laws  determines  the  date  for  the  map  on  Plate  No. 
3  as  January  I,  1887.  Plate  No.  3  will  be  found  to  show 
the  progress  that  was  made  in  extending  the  no-license 
area  by  the  two  methods,  special  legislation  and  town- 
ship local  option. 

Whenever  the  repeal  of  a  special  legislative  act  changed 
the  area  to  license  during  the  interval  between  the  dates 
of  two  successive  maps  the  area  is  not  shown  as  no-li- 
cense. When  the  local-prohibition  ordinance  of  an  area 
has  been  repealed  the  area  does  not  appear  as  a  no-license 
area  on  a  date  succeeding  its  repeal.1  To  be  represented 
on  the  map  the  ordinance  must  be  in  force  upon  the  date 
of  the  map.  Local  acts,  enacted  and  later  repealed,  in  a 
period  intervening  between  two  successive  maps  would 
require  other  indication  and  the  limited  number  of  these 
short-time  prohibition  enactments  did  not  justify  this 
further  complication  of  the  data  on  the  maps. 

Plate  No.  4  shows  the  distribution  of  the  no-license 
areas  previous  to  the  enactment  of  the  state  prohibitory 
laws  for  the  prohibition  commonwealths  and  on  April  1, 
1912,  for  the  other  commonwealths.  In  the  former,  the 
feathered  boundaries  indicate  the  counties  in  which  the 
sale  of  liquor  became  illegal  through  the  state  prohib- 
itory enactment ;  in  the  latter,  the  counties  in  which  the 
sale  of  liquor  was  legal  on  April  1,  igi2* 

The  sources  for  the  data  showing  the  extent  of  the 
no-license  area  as  indicated  by  circles  and  double  county 
boundary  lines  for  January  1,  1868,  January  1,  1877, 
January  1,  1887,  and  April  1,  1912,  as  shown  on  Plates 
Nos.  1,  2,  3,  and  4,  respectively,  will  now  be  indicated 
in  the  order  of  the  commonwealths.3 

of  one  mile  radius,  one  area  of  one  and  one-half  miles  radius,  and  two 
areas  of  two  miles  radius. 

In  Texas,  in  the  two  annual  sessions  of  the  legislature  preceding 
the  enactment  of  the  township  local-option  law,  the  legislature  granted 
local  prohibition  to  seventy-eight  (78)  areas  of  two  miles  radius, 
three  (3)  areas  of  four  miles  radius,  and  seven  (7)  areas  of  five 
miles  radius,  making  a  total  area  of  1681-3/7  square  miles.  In  these 
sessions  only  one  act  of  repeal  was  passed.  This  repealed  a  local- 
prohibition  act  for  an  area  of  two  miles  radius. 

1  Since  it  is  impossible  to  get  the  data  for  any  of  the  Plates,  the  no- 
license  area  gained  by  means  of  township  local-option  elections  is  out 
of  the  question  except  as  the  county  became  no-license  through  town- 
ship local-option  elections.  These  counties  were  obtained  from  the 
State  Reports.    See  foot-note  no.  3. 

*  North  Carolina  is  excepted  from  this  rule.  Sale  of  liquor  was  legal 
in  that  state  at  the  opening  of  the  prohibition  regime  in  counties  with 
the  single  boundary  as  well  as  those  with  the  feathered  boundary.  The 
counties  with  the  single  boundary  voted  in  favor  of  the  prohibitory 
law.    Those  with  feathered  boundary  voted  against  the  measure. 

'  In  reply  to  requests  for  statements  concerning  the  authenticity  of 
the  data  contained  in  the  Reports  of  their  departments,  the  Auditors  of 
the  following  states  courteously  responded,  assuring  me  that  the  Reports 
could  be  safely  followed  for  no-license  data:  Alabama,  Letter  of  Jan- 
uary 17,  1910;  Georgia,  Comptroller  General,  Letter  of  December  23, 


ALABAMA 

The  Auditor  of  State  classifies  the  licenses  beginning 
with  the  fiscal  year  of  October  1,  1883  as  Exhibit  V:  (a) 
Retailers  of  Liquors;  (b)  Wholesale  Liquor  Dealers, 
etc.  In  the  Session  Laws  are  indicated  the  dates  on 
which  the  counties  represented  as  no-license  in  this  Re- 
port became  no-license  area. 

The  Session  Laws  are  the  source  for  the  data  on  Plates 
Nos.  1  and  2.  The  Session  Laws  and  the  Auditor's  Re- 
ports furnish  the  data  for  Plates  Nos.  3  and  4.  The  data 
for  the  situation  on  April  1,  1912  was  kindly  furnished 
by  the  State  Anti-Saloon  League.4 

ARKANSAS 

Schedule  No.  23  in  the  Biennial  Report  of  the  Auditor 
of  State  for  1878- 1880,  in  "Statements  showing  the 
amounts  paid  to  the  State  Treasury  by  the  County  Col- 
lectors and  Treasurer  on  account  of  the  sinking  fund  for 
the  two  years  ending  Sept.  30,  1880,"  indicates  that 
every  county  in  the  State  paid  a  liquor  license.  I  as- 
sume, therefore,  since  no  special  legislation  gives  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary,  that  there  were  no  no-license  coun- 
ties on  either  January  1,  1868,  or  January  1,  1877.  The 
Secretary  of  State  records  in  the  Biennial  Reports  the 
vote  by  counties  of  the  biennial  elections-on-license.5 
These  Reports  and  the  Session  Laws  are  the  basis  for 
the  location  of  the  no-license  areas  in  Arkansas  as  indi- 
cated by  circles  and  by  double  county  boundaries  on 
Plates  Nos.  3  and  4. 

FLORIDA 

Florida  voted  on  the  County  Local-Option  Law  as  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  on  November  2,  1886. 
The  amendment  was  adopted.  Repressive  liquor  leg- 
islation had  secured  up  to  this  time  no  no-license  coun- 
ties. The  no-license  counties  were  sparsely  settled  and 
could  not  support  a  saloon.6  The  list  of  license  counties 
for  April  1,  191 2  was  kindly  furnished  by  the  Comptroller 
of  State.7 

GEORGIA 

Beginning  with  the  fiscal  year  of  November  1,  1883, 
the  Comptroller  General  includes  the  county  liquor  tax 
in  his  Report  as  Table  II,  Liquor  Tax.  These  Reports 
with  the  Session  Laws  are  the  basis  for  the  no-license 

1909;  Mississippi,  Letter  of  November  24,  1909;  Tennessee,  Comptroller 
of  Public  Accounts,  Letter  of  January  15,  1910;  Virginia,  Letter  of 
October  8,  1908;  West  Virginia,  Letter  of  August  18,  191 1. 
*  Letter  of  April  12,  1912. 

6  See  Item  8,  Table  I. 

8  For  example,  Wakulla  County,  upon  authority  of  the  County  Clerk, 
Letter  of  September  1,  191 1. 

7  Letter  of  April  13,  1912. 


14 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


counties  of  Georgia  as  indicated  by  the  double  boundaries 
on  Plate  No.  3,  and  for  the  license  and  the  no-license 
counties  as  indicated  by  the  feathered  and  double  bound- 
ary lines  respectively  for  Plate  No.  4  (January  1,  1908). 
In  Chapter  XLIX  of  King  Alcohol  in  the  Realm  0/ 
King  Cotton?  entitled  "  Present  Status  of  the  Counties  of 
Georgia"  is  found  a  summary  of  the  results  of  the  county 
local-option  elections  up  to  1887.  This  source  is  also 
used  for  the  no-license  counties  in  Georgia  on  Plate  No. 
3.  The  data  for  the  maps  of  Georgia  on  Plates  Nos.  1 
and  2,  showing  the  distribution  of  no-license  areas  was 
secured  from  the  Session  Laws  alone.  The  data  for  the 
counties  on  Plate  No.  4  was  verified  by  Mr.  J.  B.  Richards 
of  the  State  Anti-Saloon  League.3 

KENTUCKY 

Kentucky  legislatures  have  consistently  adhered  to 
the  local-prohibition-through-special-legislation  policy. 
The  optional  type  of  local  prohibition  has  been  used 
generally  with  the  county  as  a  unit.  For  example,  in 
1881  twelve  counties  were  granted  the  permission  to 
vote  on  license.  The  Reports  of  the  Auditor  of  Public 
Accounts  beginning  with  the  fiscal  year  of  October  1, 
1868,  give  the  number  of  liquor  dealers  in  the  counties. 

The  sources  for  the  data  indicated  on  Plates  Nos.  2 
and  3  were  the  Session  Laws  and  the  Auditor's  Reports. 
The  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts3  and  the  Anti-Saloon 
League4  furnished  the  data  for  Plate  No.  4. 

LOUISIANA 

In  Louisiana  there  are  no  official  reports  from  which 
data  can  be  obtained.  The  Auditors  of  State  in  their 
reports  group  all  the  parish  occupation  licenses  to- 
gether. Whether  or  not  there  were  no-license  parishes 
on  or  before  January  1,  1887  could  not  be  determined 
The  Session  Laws  are  the  sources  for  the  location  of  the 
no-license  areas. 

The  data  for  Plate  No.  4  was  kindly  furnished  by  the 
State  Anti-Saloon  League.5 

MARYLAND 

Maryland,  like  Kentucky,  has  followed  the  policy  of 
optional  -  local  -  prohibition  -  through  -  special  -  legislation 
consistently  for  the  county,  while  quite  generally  grant- 
ing no-license  to  smaller  areas  by  local-prohibition- 
through-special-legislation. 

1  Henry  A.  Scomp,  King  Alcohol  in  the  Realm  of  King  Cotton  (a 
history  of  the  liquor  traffic  and  of  the  temperance  movement  in  Georgia 
from  1733  to  1887).     Chicago,  1888. 

*  Letter  of  April  16,  1912. 
3  Letter  of  April  11,  1912. 

*  Letter  of  April  3,  1912. 

6  Letter  of  November  21,  191 1. 


The  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  has  published  the 
county  liquor  tax  in  his  Report  since  the  fiscal  year  be- 
ginning December  2,  1851.  The  Balti?nore  Sun  Almanac 
has  been  a  very  valuable  source  of  information.  For 
nearly  twenty  years  the  Almanac  contained  the  precinct 
votes  of  the  elections-on-license,  and  a  list  of  the  no- 
license  counties  for  the  first  of  each  year. 

MISSISSIPPI 
The  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  has  published  in  his 
annual  report  since  1872  the  county  tax,  "License  to 
Retail."  The  Session  Laws  and  the  Reports  of  the 
Auditor  are  the  sources  for  the  data  for  Mississippi  given 
on  Plates  Nos.  2,  3  and  4.  The  Session  Laws  are  the 
sources  for  the  data  on  Plate  No.  1. 

NORTH    CAROLINA 

Since  reliance  could  not  be  placed  in  the  tables  found 
in  the  Reports  of  the  State  Auditor6  for  the  data  for  the 
counties  of  North  Carolina,  the  Session  Laws  are  the 
only  source  for  Plates  Nos.  1,  2  and  3. 

North  Carolina  did  not  cease  to  employ  the  local-pro- 
hibition-through-special-legislation method  upon  the 
adoption  of  general  local-option  laws.7  In  many  of  the 
counties  the  method  was  carried  to  the  extent  that  the 
aggregate  no-license  area  exceeded  that  of  the  county. 
In  this  commonwealth  it  was  impossible  then  to  locate 
accurately  on  Plate  No.  4  the  no-license  areas.  The 
circles,  while  drawn  to  correct  scale,  are  arranged  within 
the  county  without  reference  to  the  correct  location. 
No  more  circles  are  added  after  the  county  is  covered. 
In  the  western  one-third  of  this  commonwealth  on  Plate 
No.  4  the  circles  are  arranged  schematically.  The  State 
Anti-Saloon  League  furnished  the  data  for  Plate  No.  4.8 

The  counties  with  feathered  boundary  lines  and  the 
counties  with  single  boundary  lines  were  those  within 
which  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor  became  illegal  with 
the  opening  of  the  state-prohibition  regime.  The  former 
voted  against  the  law;  the  latter  voted  in  favor  of  it. 

SOUTH    CAROLINA 

South  Carolina  has  used  the  local-prohibition-through- 
special-legislation  method  for  local  areas  and  for  coun- 
ties. Since  the  opening  of  the  dispensary  regime,  the 
optional  -  local  -  prohibition  -  through  -  special-legislation 
method  has  been  used  for  the  county. 

The  data  contained  in  Plates  Nos.  1,  2  and  3  was  com- 

s  State  Auditor,  Letter  of  January  12,  1910. 

7  Cf.  Plates  Nos.  2,  3,  and  4. 

8  Letter  of  March  5,  1912. 


PROGRESS  IN  THE  REPRESS/ON  OF  THE  SALOON 


15 


piled  from  the  Session  Laws.  The  Report  of  the  Dis- 
pensary Auditor  for  191 1  is  the  authority  for  the  dis- 
pensary counties  as  indicated  on  Plate  No.  4. 

TENNESSEE 

Tennessee  has  used  a  modified  form  of  optional  local 
prohibition.  Item  No.  10,  Table  I,  enumerates  these  gen- 
eral acts.  Act  No.  112  of  1871  prohibited  the  sale  of 
liquor  within  six  miles  of  any  iron  manufactory  not 
located  in  an  incorporated  town.  Act  No.  23  of  1877 
was  the  first  general  optional  prohibition  enactment. 
An  institution  of  learning  not  within  the  limits  of  an 
incorporated  town  could,  through  incorporation,  pro- 
hibit the  sale  of  liquor  within  a  radius  of  four  miles,  and 
Act  No.  31  established  the  same  conditions  for  any  mine, 
quarry,  furnace,  rolling  mill,  foundry  or  factory.  The 
radius  of  the  area  was  five  miles.1  Act  No.  167  of  1887 
prohibited  the  sale  of  liquor  "  within  four  miles  of  any 
school-house,  public  or  private,  where  a  school  is  kept, 
whether  the  school  be  then  in  session  or  not."  Section 
2  provided  that  the  act  should  not  apply  to  the  sale  of 
liquors  within  the  limits  of  incorporated  towns.  Act 
No.  221  of  1899  amended  this  section  making  it  possible 
for  towns  with  a  population  of  less  than  two  thousand 
to  remove  through  re-incorporation  the  restrictions  of 
Section  2.  Act  No.  2  of  1903  further  amended  the  sec- 
tion by  substituting  "five  thousand"  for  "two  thousand" 
in  the  Amendment  of  1899,  and  later  Act  No.  17  of  1907 
substituted  "  one  hundred  and  fifty  "  for  the  "  five  "  of 
the  previous  amendment.  Finally,  the  State  Prohibitory 
Law  prohibited  the  sale  of  liquor  within  four  miles  of 
any  school-house  in  the  commonwealth.2 

The  Session  Laws  and  the  Reports  of  the  Comptroller 
of  Public  Accounts  are  the  sources  for  the  data  for 
Tennessee  on  Plates  Nos.  1,  2,  3  and  4. 

TEXAS 

The  Session  Laws  are  the  sources  for  the  data  on 
Plates  Nos.  1  and  2.  In  the  case  of  Robertson  v.  The 
State,3  the  court  ruled  that  a  local-option  election  result- 
ing in  conflict  with  another  act  regulating  the  sale  of 
liquor  annulled  the  latter  act.  The  no-license  local  areas 
could  not  be  definitely  determined,  therefore,  for  Plates 
Nos.  3  and  4.  Mr.  H.  A.  Ivy,  author  of  Rum  on  the  Run 
in  Texas,  kindly  furnished  the  county  data  for  Plates 
Nos.  3  and  4.4 

1  Section  8. 

1  Act  No.  1  of  1909. 

»  s  Tex.  App.,  155- 

4  Letter  of  March  26,  1912. 


VIRGINIA 

The  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  begins  with  the  fiscal 
year  of  October  1,  1874,  to  indicate  the  county  "License 
Tax  assessed  upon   Liquor  Merchants." 

The  Session  Laws  were  the  sources  for  the  data  indi- 
cated on  Plate  No.  1.  The  Session  Laws  and  the  Re- 
ports of  the  State  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  are  the 
sources  for  the  data  on  Plates  Nos.  2,  3,  and  4.  The 
county  data  for  Plate  No.  4  were  verified  by  the  State 
Anti- Saloon  League.5 

WEST  VIRGINIA 

The  State  Auditor  begins  with  the  fiscal  year  of  May 
1,  1885,  to  classify  among  the  "License  Taxes"  the 
county  tax  on  wholesale  and  retail  liquor  dealers. 

The  Session  Laws  and  these  Reports  are  the  sources 
for  the  data  for  West  Virginia  on  Plates  Nos.  1,  2,  3, 
and  4.  The  list  of  no-license  counties  on  April  1,  1912, 
was  verified  by  the  State  Anti-Saloon  League.6 

The  sources  of  data  have  now  been  presented.  These 
data  form  the  background  for  the  investigation  and  en- 
able us  to  trace  the  growth  of  the  no-license  area  from 
its  inception  in  1835  down  to  April  1,  1912.  This 
growth  has  been  largely  the  progress  of  the  abolition  of 
the  saloon.  The  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor  has  not 
ceased,  however,  with  the  enactment  of  prohibitory  laws. 
A  serious  hindrance  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,  no 
matter  by  what  means  their  enactment  had  been  ac- 
complished, must  be  taken  into  account.  The  illicit  sale 
of  liquor  has  always  been  a  problem  for  the  no-license 
community.  This  is  not  because  legislative  enactment 
has  been  contrary  to  local  sentiment.  The  community 
has  been  powerless  in  the  face  of  federal  law.  Condi- 
tions in  the  local  community  could  not  modify  the  situa- 
tion. It  is  of  a  general  nature  and  beyond  the  direct 
control  of  the  local  community.  The  history  of  the 
efforts  of  prohibition  communities  and  commonwealths 
to  get  relief  at  the  hands  of  Congress  will  be  treated  in 
a  later  chapter. 

Furthermore,  a  second  form  of  legalized  sale  of  intox- 
icating liquors  distinct  from  the  saloon  has  been  insti- 
tuted in  the  South.  Over  a  wide  area  in  a  total  of  one 
hundred  and  forty-two  counties  in  five  different  com- 
monwealths, the  dispensary  has  been  established  as  a 
substitute  for  the  saloon.  To-day  the  dispensary  exists 
in  sixteen  counties.  To  the  history  of  this  American 
experiment  with  a  modified  Scandinavian  method  of 
public  control  over  the  liquor  traffic,  we  turn  in  the  next 
chapter. 


6  Letter  of  March  12,  1912. 


6  Letter  of  February  21,  1912. 


CHAPTER  III 


The  Dispensary  Movement  in  the  South 


The  second  and  only  other  form  of  a  legalized  dis- 
tributing agency  for  alcoholic  liquors  established  in  the 
South  is  the  dispensary.1  One  entire  commonwealth  and 
both  counties  and  municipalities  in  four  other  common- 
wealths upon  reaching  the  conclusion,  either  that  the 
liquor  traffic  could  not  be  entirely  suppressed,  or  that 
further  efforts  to  make  the  regulation  of  private  dealers 
entirely  effectual  were  useless,  have  excluded  the  private 
dealers  completely  from  the  field  of  trade  in  intoxicating 
liquors.  As  an  alternative  the  government  has,  itself, 
entered.  The  dispensary  has  become,  in  some  localities, 
a  substitute  for  local  prohibition ;  in  others,  a  substitute 
for  the  saloon,  and  in  a  very  few  others  the  competitor 
of  the  saloon.*  The  dispensary  is  a  store  where  alcoholic 
liquors  of  all  ordinary  kinds  and  of  assured  purity  are 
sold  under  public  authority,  in  quantities  of  not  less 
than  one-half  pint  in  bottles  (or  other  sealed  packages) 
not  to  be  opened  on  the  premises ;  no  sale  being  allowed 
on  credit,  or  to  minors,  or  drunkards,  or  between  sunset 
and  sunrise,  or  on  Sundays. 

The  dispensary  movement  in  the  United  States  origi- 
nated with  the  Georgia  legislature.  In  the  session  of 
1 89 1  it  granted  to  the  college  town  of  Athens  in  Clarke 
County  a  local  dispensary  system.3     Clarke  County  in  a 

1  Excepting  of  course  the  pharmacy. 

*  A  number  of  counties  in  the  South  established  dispensaries  without 
abolishing  all  of  the  saloons  within  the  county.  As  a  general  rule,  a 
municipality  seldom  retained  the  saloon  upon  establishing  the  dis- 
pensary. Few  dispensaries  have  competed  directly  with  the  saloon  in 
the  same  locality. 

*  At  this  time  and  for  several  years  later,  many  students  of  the 
liquor  problem  had  advocated  the  company  system,  which  originated 
in  Gothenburg,  Sweden,  and  had  been  adopted  in  numerous  cities  of 
Sweden,  Norway  and  Finland,  as  the  best  substitute  for  the  saloon. 
The  company  system's  trial  in  Scandinavia  had  shown  it,  as  they  con- 
tended, "  to  be  the  most  successful  system  yet  devised  where  licensing 
prevails  and  that  it  represents  a  distinct  step  in  political  as  well  as 
social  progress."  The  fundamental  idea  of  this  system  of  liquor 
licenses  is  the  conduct  of  the  retail  traffic  without  financial  reward 
other  than  ordinary  interest  upon  the  capital  invested,  and  the  regula- 
tion of  the  sale  by  public  authority  in  such  a  manner  that  drinking 
is  discouraged  and  the  saloon  is  purged  of  gambling  and  immorality. 
Under  a  general  system  of  local  option,  which  allows  prohibition 
where  it  is  wanted,  individual  communities  have  also  the  choice  of 
giving  a  company  of  substantial  citizens  the  monopoly  of  the  sale  of 
spirits.  The  sale  is  subject  to  the  condition  that  all  profits  in  excess 
of  a  low  rate  of  interest  on  their  company's  investment  shall  accrue 
to  public  welfare. 

16 


county  local-option  election  in  1885  had  voted  for  pro- 
hibition, and  this  vote  had  not  been  reversed.  The  first 
dispensary  was  a  substitute  for  county  prohibition.  This 
dispensary  had  not  been  established  two  years  before  it 
became  the  suggestion  for  wider  trial.  In  South  Caro- 
lina at  this  time  the  situation  was  ripening  for  state 
prohibition.  Six  counties  had  already  gained  prohibition 
through  special  legislation.4  In  189 1  numerous  petitions 
favoring  prohibition  were  presented  to  the  legislature.5 
The  lower  branch  of  the  legislature  passed  a  measure  by 
a  vote  of  fifty-three  to  thirty-seven,  but  the  bill  was  killed 
in  the  Senate.  It  was  agreed,  however,  in  the  conven- 
tion preceding  the  state  campaign  of  1892  to  take  a 
popular  vote  on  prohibition  by  special  ballot  in  the  elec- 
tions of  that  year.  Prohibition  received  a  majority  of 
some  ten  thousand  votes  out  of  a  total  vote  of  seventy 
thousand. 

The  vigorous  and  aggressive  governor  in  his  message 
of  that  year,  interpreted  this  vote,  "though  submitted  to 
the  people  as  an  abstract  proposition  without  any  defi- 
nite legislation  being  indicated"  and  receiving  "a  ma- 
jority of  the  votes  cast  on  that  subject,  although  not  a 
majority  of  the  total  votes  cast,"  as  indicating  "  a  wish  on 
the  part  of  a  large  number  of  our  people  that  there  should 
be  some  restrictive  legislation  in  regard  to  the  liquor 
traffic."6  The  problem  demanded  solution.  "Granting 
the  possibility  of  doing  something  towards  abolishing 
the  nuisance  of  bar-rooms,"  he  continued,  "  I  would 
call  your  attention  to  the  law  now  in  force  at  Athens, 
Georgia,  by  which  a  dispensary  for  the  sale  of  liquors  is 
provided  and  which  after  trial  is  pronounced  a  success  by 
the  prohibitionists  themselves."  This  was  a  possible  ave- 
nue of  escape  from  state  prohibition.  The  legislature 
enacted  the  Dispensary  Law — the  only  commonwealth 
dispensary  law  ever  enacted  in  the  United  States. 

EXPLANATION  OF  PLATE  NO.  5. 

Plate  No.  5  shows  the  distribution  of  dispensaries  by 
counties  in  southern  commonwealths.  These  counties 
as  shown  on  the  map  are  of  two  classes :  first,  the  coun- 

4  Message   of   Gov.    Tillman,   November  20,    1893.     Senate   Journal, 
p.  42. 

6  House  Journal,  1891,  p.  238. 

6  Message  of  Gov.  Tillman,  November  22,  1892.   Senate  Journal,  p.  24. 


ThE  DISPENSARY  MOVEMENT  IN  THE  SOUTH 


17 


ties  which  abolished  the  dispensaries  by  local  means,  i.  e. 
the  repeal  of  special  acts  or  through  local-option  elec- 
tions ;  *  second,  the  counties  in  which  the  dispensaries  are 
still  in  operation,  or  in  which  they  were  abolished  by  the 
state  prohibitory  law. 

The  sources  for  the  data  on  Plate  No.  5  showing  the 
distribution  of  dispensaries  by  counties  in  the  five  southern 
commonwealths  will  now  be  given. 

ALABAMA 

Since  the  Report  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  September 
30,  1900,  the  Auditor  of  State  has  classified  the  licenses 
issued  to  dispensaries.  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  the 
county  local-option  law  in  191 1,  all  dispensaries  were 
gained  by  special  legislative  acts,  in  some  cases  with  the 
referendum  clause  attached.  The  Session  Laws  and  the 
Auditor's  Reports,  then,  are  the  sources  for  the  data. 

GEORGIA 

In  the  Reports  of  the  Comptroller  General,  saloon  and 
dispensary  licenses  are  classed  together  as  "  Liquor 
Tax."  All  dispensaries  were  established  by  special  legis- 
lative acts. 

The  Session  Laws  and  the  Reports  of  the  Comptroller 
General  are  the  sources  for  the  data. 

NORTH   CAROLINA 

For  six  successive  fiscal  years,  beginning  with  Decem- 
ber 1,  1899,  the  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  gives,  as 
Statement  D,  "  Dispensary  Tax  on  Receipts."  The  Re- 
ports are  authentic  sources.2  The  dispensaries  were 
established  by  special  acts  before  the  enactment  of  the 
county  local-option  law  of  1903.  The  reports  cover  the 
special-legislation  period  and  the  early  part  of  the  local- 
option  period.  Mr.  R.  L.  Davis,  of  the  Anti-Saloon 
League,  kindly  furnished  the  data  for  the  final  date.3  It 
is  probable,  then,  that  the  sources  covered  the  field. 

SOUTH  CAROLINA 

Governor  Ellerbe  stated  in  his  message  of  January  11, 
1899  tnat  Marlboro  County  had  never  established  a  dis- 
pensary.4 

The  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  Dispensary  Auditor, 
191 1,  furnished  the  data  for  April  1,  1912. 

VIRGINIA 

In  Virginia  dispensaries  were  established  by  special 
acts,  generally  with  the  referendum  clause  affixed.     The 

1  Clarke  County,  Ga.,  the  original  dispensary  county,  located  in  the 
northeast  corner  of  the  state,  was  of  the  first  type. 
'Auditor  of  Public  Accounts.    Letter  o/Jan.  14,  1910. 
'  Letter  of  March  20,  1912. 
K  Message  of Jan.  10,  1899,  Senate  Journal,  1899,  p.  36. 


Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  has  classified,  since  the  fiscal 
year  ending  September  30,  1901,  in  his  Annual  Report 
under  Table  No.  5,  "  Receipts  from  Dispensaries." 

The  sources  for  the  data  are,  then,  the  Session  Laws 
and  the  Reports  of  the  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts. 

The  sources  for  the  data  presented  on  Plate  No.  5 
have  now  been  covered.  Item  No.  13  of  Table  II  shows 
that  the  first  dispensaries  in  North  Carolina,  Alabama, 
and  Virginia  were  established  in  those  commonwealths  at 
intervals  of  three  years  after  the  enactment  of  the  South 
Carolina  law.  The  South  Carolina  system  deserves  par- 
ticular attention,  for  here  the  capacity  of  the  dispensary 
to  solve  the  liquor  problem  was  given  its  important  prac- 
tical test.  The  enforcement  of  the  law  was  seriously 
crippled  for  several  years  after  its  enactment.  The  enemies 
of  the  dispensary,  carrying  opposition  even  to  the  federal 
courts,  harassed  it  in  every  possible  manner,  until  finally 
in  May,  1898,  the  right  of  a  commonwealth  to  institute 
a  public  monopoly  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  was 
established  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court.5  Nine  years 
later,  after  a  trial  of  thirteen  and  one-half  years,  during 
the  whole  period  of  which  it  had  retained  the  active  sup- 
port of  the  Governors  and  their  administrations,  the 
commonwealth  dispensary  system  was  abolished6  and  the 
legislature  relinquished  to  the  county  the  commonwealth's 
control  of  the  sub-dispensaries  still  operating  in  twenty- 
four  counties.7  The  commonwealth  dispensary  system 
had  failed.8 

The  change  in  administration,  moreover,  could  not 
check  the  progress  of  the  gradual  abolition  of  the  dis- 
pensary already  instituted  under  the  commonwealth 
system.  Through  local-option  elections  twenty-four 
counties  abolished  the  dispensaries  in  1908.  On  Au- 
gust 17,  1909,  local-option  elections  were  held  in  the 
remaining  dispensary  counties.  Six  counties  voted  to 
retain  the  dispensaries.  In  two  of  the  counties  the 
majority  for  the  dispensary  was  less  than  fifty  votes. 
The  legislature  in  the  current  year  has  given  the  coun- 
ties of  the  commonwealth  an  opportunity  to  vote  in 
November  upon  the  re-establishment  of  the  dispensary 
if  they  choose  to  resubmit  the  proposition. 

In  four  other  commonwealths  of  the  South,  as  we 
have  seen,  county  and  municipal  dispensaries  have  been 
established  over  a  wide  extent  of  the  territory.  A  com- 
parison of  the  separate  map  of  Alabama  on  Plate  No.  4 
with  that  on  Plate  No.  5  shows  that  although  the  dis- 

6  Vance  v.  Vandercook,  170  N.  S.,  438. 
•  Act  No.  402. 

7  Act  No.  226. 

8  No  other  commonwealth  would  establish  a  similar  system  after  an 
impartial  investigation  of  the  South  Carolina  Dispensary  System. 


i8 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


pensary  counties  at  the  opening  of  the  prohibition  regime 
have  had  ample  opportunity  to  return  to  dispensaries 
since  the  repeal  of  state  prohibition  in  191 1,  only  one 
county  has  re-established  the  dispensary.  There  are, 
then,  eleven  counties  which  had  dispensaries  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  prohibition  regime  and  which  have  since  ex- 
pressed their  disapproval  of  the  dispensary  system.  Two 
of  these  have  re-established  saloons  while  nine  have  re- 
tained county  prohibition.  Twenty-four  other  counties 
had  previously  abolished  the  dispensary. 

At  the  time  of  the  opening  of  state  prohibition  in 
North  Carolina  dispensaries  existed  in  nineteen  coun- 
ties. The  twenty-five  license  counties  at  that  time  are 
indicated  on  Plate  No.  4  by  the  single  and  the  feath- 
ered boundary  lines.  In  the  state  election  of  May  26, 
1908,  seventeen  dispensary  counties  voted  in  favor  of 
state  prohibition,  thus  indicating  indirectly  their  approval 
of  the  abolition  of  the  dispensary  within  the  county. 
These  counties  are  shown  on  Plate  No.  5  as  having 
abolished  the  dispensary  by  local  means.  Prior  to  Janu- 
ary 1,  1909,  dispensaries  had  been  established  and  later 
abolished  in  fourteen  other  counties. 

The  dispensary  has  been  given  less  extensive  trial  in 
the  two  remaining  commonwealths.  In  numerous  in- 
stances the  dispensaries  were  established  in  Georgia  as 
substitutes  for  local  or  for  county  prohibition.  While 
they  had  been  established  in  a  total  of  twenty-two 
counties  they  had  been  retained  to  be  abolished  by  state 
prohibition  in  only  seven  counties.  In  Virginia  dispen- 
saries were  established  in  twelve  counties.  Three  of  these 
counties  later  substituted  county  prohibition  for  the  sys- 
tem. This  review  and  a  study  of  Plate  No.  5  must  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  dispensaries  in  the  four  com- 
monwealths of  Alabama,  Georgia,  North  Carolina  and 
Virginia  have  met  with  no  more  popular  favor  than  has 
been  accorded  either  the  commonwealth  or  the  later 
county  system  of  South  Carolina.1 

1  Using  the  county  as  the  basis  of  our  calculation,  we  find  that  dis- 
pensaries have  been  established  in  a  population  aggregating  three 
million,  six  hundred  and  thirty-seven  thousand  (3>637,ooo).  Dis- 
pensaries have  been  abolished  by  local  means,  either  local-option  elec- 
tions or  the  repeal  of  special  laws,  in  a  population  aggregating  two 
million,  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  thousand  (2,999,000;.  The  dis- 
tribution in  the  different  commonwealths  is  as  follows: 

South  Carolina — established,  one  million,  three  hundred  and  thirteen 
thousand  (1,313,000);  abolished,  one  million,  fifty-three  thousand  (1,- 
053,000)  ;  still  existing,  two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  thousand  (259,000). 

Alabama — established,  one  million,  thirteen  thousand  (1,013,000); 
abolished,  nine  hundred  and  sixty-nine  thousand  (969,000)  ;  still  ex- 
isting, forty-four  thousand  (44,000). 

North  Carolina — established,  seven  hundred  and  fourteen  thousand 
(714,000)  ;  abolished,  six  hundred  and  seventy-one  thousand  (671,000). 

Georgia — established,  three  hundred  and  fifty-five  thousand  (355,- 
000)  ;  abolished,  two  hundred  and  forty-two  thousand  (242,000). 

Virginia — established,  two  hundred   and  forty-two  thousand    (242,- 


CONCLUSION 

As  outlined  by  Governor  Tillman,  "  The  claims  of  the 
dispensary  to  support  and  its  superiority  over  any  form 
of  licensing  rest  on  the  following  grounds:"2 

a.  The  element  of  personal  profit  is  destroyed,  thereby 
removing  the  incentive  to  increase  the  sales. 

b.  A  pure  article  is  guaranteed. 

c.  Honest  measure  of  standard  strength  is  guaranteed. 

d.  Treating  is  stopped. 

e.  Liquor  is  sold  only  in  the  daytime. 

f.  The  concomitants  of  ices,  sugar,  lemons,  etc.,  are 
removed,  and  the  inclination  to  drink  thus  reduced. 

g.  All  sales  are  for  cash. 

h.  The  low  dives,  almost  invariably  associated  with  the 
saloons,  are  separated  from  the  sale  of  liquor. 

i.  The  local  whiskey  rings,  the  bane  of  every  munici- 
pality in  the  state,  are  gone.  Disregarding  the  pos- 
sibility of  an  enormous  increase  in  the  annual  revenue 
that  might  accrue  to  the  state  from  the  extension  of  the 
function  of  government  to  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor, 
the  governor  found  his  argument  for  the  dispensary  to 
be  its  capacity  to  eliminate  the  evils  that  spring  from  the 
private  traffic  in  that  commodity.  This  confidence  con- 
tinued after  the  establishment  of  the  system,  for  in  the 
message  of  the  following  year  he  asserts:  "The  law  has 
come  to  stay,  and  it  now  depends  on  its  enforcement  and 
administration  whether  it  will  spread  to  other  states  or 
not."» 

Does  the  history  of  the  dispensary  in  the  South  throw 
any  light  at  this  time  on  its  probable  future  in  the 
United  States?  What  are  the  causes  for  its  gradual 
disappearance  after  so  extensive  a  trial  in  the  South  ? 
Has  the  dispensary,  as  its  advocates  had  hoped,  proved 
its  superiority  over  the  saloon  as  a  distributing  agency 
for  intoxicating  liquors  ? 

The  dispensary  in  the  South  has  proved  its  superiority 
over  the  saloon  as  a  revenue  measure.'1  The  South 
Carolina  commonwealth  system  during  its  existence  of 
nearly  fourteen  years  yielded,  on  the  average  the  signifi- 
cant monthly  profit  of  $38,800.00.  The  revenue  argu- 
ment has  often  been  used  to  good  advantage  to  carry  local- 
option  elections  for  license.     This  has  been   particularly 

000)  ;  abolished,  sixty-three  thousand  (63,000) ;  still  existing,  one 
hundred  and  seventy-nine  thousand  (179,000).  "Abolished"  is  used 
in  the  case  of  Alabama  and  North  Carolina  in  the  sense  that  has  been 
defined  already  in  this  chapter. 

1  Message  of  November  28,  1893,  Senate  Journal,  1893,  p.  36. 

3  Message  of  November  28,  1894,  Senate  Journal,  1894,  p.  18. 

•The  net  profits  to  the  commonwealth  and  to  the  counties  and  mu- 
nicipalities from  the  establishment  of  the  business  down  to  the  opening 
of  the  current  fiscal  year  may  be  approximated  quite  accurately  by  a 
compilation  of  statements  contained  in  the  various  official  reports.  For 
this  data  see  Table  III. 


THE  DISPENSARY  MOVEMENT  IN  THE  SOUTH 


19 


true  after  a  period  of  lax  prohibitory  enforcement.  In- 
toxicating liquors  continue  to  be  sold,  though  illegally, 
and  municipal  taxation  is  derived  from  property.  The 
nuisance  without  the  benefit  causes  a  change  in  senti- 
ment. But  the  revenue  feature  was  not  sufficient  to  re- 
tain the  dispensary.  The  dispensary  did  not  eliminate 
the  corrupt  influences  of  the  saloon.1  In  the  annual 
messages  of  South  Carolina  executives,  the  concern  of 
whose  administrations  was  the  maintenance  of  the  com- 
monwealth dispensary  system,  is  revealed  the  causes  for 
its  abolition:  "The  people  will  not  stand  for  anything 
in  which  they  believe  graft  enters  in  any  form  and  a  ser- 
ious trouble  with  the  Dispensary  Law  is  that  it  affords 
too  great  opportunity  for  wrongdoing  and  too  little 
opportunity  for  its  detection," '  and  "  It  is  notorious  that 
the  dispensary  is  as  much  or  more  in  politics  than  it 

'The  advocates  of  the  dispensary  system  found  ground  for  their 
optimism,  no  doubt,  in  the  large  success  of  the  Gothenburg  company 
system.  The  Norwegian  plan  bears  a  striking  likeness  to  the  American 
dispensary  system.  The  former  system  represents  the  socialization  of 
the  liquor  traffic ;  the  latter,  the  state  socialization  of  the  traffic.  The 
South  Carolina  system,  with  its  distributing  agency  in  the  local  dispen- 
sary, depended  for  its  efficacy  as  a  means  of  social  betterment  upon  the 
local  political  authorities.  Here  was  large  opportunity  for  corruption, 
as  proved  to  be  the  case,  slightly  appreciated  by  the  advocates  of  the 
dispensary  system.  {Vide.  Report  of  the  State  Dispensary,  Reports 
and  Resolutions,  South  Carolina,  1895,  p.  841.)  The  Gothenburg  sys- 
tem was  placed  in  the  hands  of  reputable  men.  The  management  of  the 
dispensary  system,  instead  of  being  in  the  hands  of  the  selected  group 
of  socially  fit,  was  more  likely  in  the  American  city  to  be  in  the  hands 
of  an  elected  group  of  the  political  available,  a  group  reflecting  only  the 
average  standards  of  that  portion  of  the  community  which  takes  an 


ever  was."3  Finally,  to  quote  the  testimony  of  the  Com- 
mittee appointed  to  close  up  the  commonwealth  dispen- 
sary system :  Some  of  "  the  officials  who  fattened  at  the 
expense  of  the  State  became  shameless  in  their  abuse  of 
power,  insatiable  in  their  greed,  and  perfidious  in  their 
disregard  of  their  oaths  of  office We  desire  to  ex- 
press satisfaction  at  having  reached  the  end  of  a  busi- 
ness  disgusting  in  revelations  of  corruption  which 

had  so  deplorably  permeated  the  business  that  it  renders 
fumigation,  figuratively  speaking,  necessary  to  approach 
the  subject  with  comfort." 4  The  South  has  finally  placed 
public  welfare  above  revenue.  It  has  gone  far  in  banish- 
ing the  saloon  and  the  dispensary  from  its  borders.  In 
its  wider  aspects,  then,  it  would  seem  that  the  experience 
of  the  South  with  the  dispensary  argues  for  its  final  ex- 
tinction rather  than  its  extension  to  new  territory. 

active  interest  in  politics.  The  more  aristocratic  traditions  and  the 
more  clearly-defined  class  distinctions  of  society  in  Europe  afford  a 
natural  social  leadership,  and  make  social  action  successful  in  fields 
which  in  the  United  States  are  given  over  to  political  action.  More- 
over, the  moral  status  of  the  liquor  traffic  throughout  Europe  admits  a 
participation  in  its  management  without  loss  of  caste.  In  the  United 
States  the  "  better  class  "  are  as  yet  unwilling  to  soil  their  hands  with  it. 

2  Message  of  Governor  Heyward,  Jan.  8, 1907.  Senate  Journal,  1907, 
pp.  18,  19. 

3 Message  of  Governor  Ellerbe,  Jan.  11,  1899.  Senate  Journal,  1899, 
p.  46. 

'Report  of  the  State  Dispensary  Commission  of  South  Carolina,  Jan- 
uary 12,  1910.  Reports  and  Resolutions,  South  Carolina,  1910,  vol.  3, 
p.  282.  Also  the  Report  of  the  State  Dispensary  Commission  of  South 
Carolina,  January  I,  1908.  Reports  and  Resolutions,  South  Carolina, 
1908,  vol.  3,  pp.  329-330. 


CHAPTER  IV 


Hindrances  of  Federal  Law  to  Prohibitory  Enforcement 


The  ideal  conditions  for  administrative  efficiency  in 
the  enforcement  of  prohibitory  laws  are  met,  theoret- 
ically, whenever  legislative  requirement  fails  to  exceed 
quantitatively  local  sentiment.  In  the  analysis  of  this 
principle  we  will  find  the  superiority  of  local-prohibition- 
through-special-legislation  over  local  option.1  When- 
ever prohibition,  whether  general  or  local,  is  estab- 
lished, however,  forces  beyond  the  control  of  the 
community  and  interfering  with  administrative  efficiency 
are  soon  functioning.  In  practice  these  forces  are  seri- 
ous hindrances  to  the  enforcement  of  the  law.  Needless 
to  say,  prohibitory  legislation  has  as  a  real  and  ultimate 
object  the  restriction  of  the  consumption  of  intoxicating 
liquors.  Commonwealths  and  communities  have,  as 
yet,  attempted  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  liquor  in 
but  two  ways :  in  prohibiting  first  its  manufacture  and 
second  its  sale.  It  is  quite  significant  that  throughout  the 
long  history  of  prohibitory  legislation  no  community  in 
the  South  has  prohibited  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors.2 

Stimulating  to  the  utmost  as  it  always  does  the  resist- 
ance of  the  liquor  traffic  and  its  supporters,  prohibitory 
legislation  is  subject  to  continuous  attack.  It  succeeds 
in  abolishing  and  preventing  the  manufacture  on  a  large 
scale  of  distilled  and  malt  liquors  within  the  areas  affected 
by  it,  and  in  districts  where  local  sentiment  is  strongly 
in  favor  of  prohibition  the  sale  of  liquor  is  reduced.  It 
becomes  difficult  to  obtain  intoxicants.  But  prohibitory 
legislation  fails  to  exclude  intoxicants  completely  even 
from  those  districts  where  the  sentiment  is  strongest. 
In  districts  where  public  sentiment  is  adverse  or  strongly 
divided,  the  traffic  in  alcoholic  beverages  has  been  some- 
times repressed  or  harassed  but  never  exterminated  or 
rendered  unprofitable.  Any  restriction  whatever  upon 
the  licensed  traffic  has  the  tendency  to  develop  illicit 
selling.  As  a  rule  it  will  be  granted  that  it  is  "  more 
difficult  to  enforce  the  regulatory  features  of  the  best 
license  law,  in  order  to  prevent  the  illegal  sale  of  liquor, 
than  it  is  to  enforce  the  most  drastic  and  simpler  features 
of  the  prohibitory  law."3 

The  incidental  difficulties  created  by  the  United  States 

1  See  chap,  vi,  p.  33. 

*  See  Table  I,  item  18. 

*  Mr.  Miller,  of  Kansas,  in  Congressional  Record,  vol.  46,  pt.  v,  Ap- 
pendix, p.  219. 

20 


revenue  laws  and  the  freedom  of  interstate  commerce 
have  never  been  overcome.  Every  student  of  the  liquor 
traffic  acknowledges  in  the  light  of  the  experience  of 
states,  of  counties,  and  of  local  communities  that  prohibi- 
tion is  impossible  so  long  as  intoxicating  liquors  are  re- 
garded as  a  legitimate  article  of  commerce  by  the 
National  Government.  Congress  has  determined  that 
revenue  for  the  National  Government  should  be  raised 
through  an  excise  system  of  taxation  and  has  maintained 
a  tax  on  all  those  who  engage  in  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors.  Every  dealer  must  purchase  an  internal  revenue 
stamp.  These  Federal  tax  receipts  are  issued  indis- 
criminately to  all  applicants  and  consequently  to  those, 
whether  in  license  or  no-license  territory,  who  are  will- 
ing to  risk  the  state  or  local  penalty  for  illegal  selling 
but  do  not  dare  to  incur  the  drastic  punishment  of  the 
National  Government.  This  federal  embarrassment  to 
the  enforcement  of  state  and  local  law  allows  the  liquor 
traffic  to  creep  back  and  revive  surreptitiously  the  trade 
which  formerly  plied  openly.  Liquor  is  shipped  in  from 
other  states,  and  state  legislation  cannot  prevent  it. 
With  these  handicaps  prohibitory  law  has  never  yet  in 
American  history  been  accorded  a  fair  trial. 

The  subject  of  the  transportation  of  liquor  into  or 
within  a  commonwealth  has  been  a  very  embarrassing 
one  for  legislatures  in  every  commonwealth  which  has 
tried  the  policy  of  prohibition  whether  state  prohibition, 
local  prohibition,  or  state  monopoly.4  In  common- 
wealths where  local  option  prevails,  transportation  by 
express  between  license  communities  and  no-license  com- 
munities is  only  slightly  impeded.  To  many  students  of 
this  problem  it  seems  that  the  time  has  arrived  for  Con- 
gress to  remove  from  prohibition  communities  the  weight 
of  the  interstate  liquor  traffic.  They  have  the  conviction 
that  the  future  of  temperance  reform  in  America  is  being 
"too  heavily  mortgaged  in  order  to  make  a  successful 
showing  in  present  conflicts.  If  in  the  end  it  shall  be 
found  that  the  states  are  hopelessly  handicapped  because 
the  needed  relief  has  not  been  obtained  from  the  Federal 
Government  before  it  is  too  late,  the  price  of  these  vic- 
tories will  have  been  too  great."5 

4  See  Table  I,  items  17,  18,  20  and  21. 

6  Mr.  Nicholson,  before  the  Fourteenth  National  Convention  of  the 
Anti-Saloon  League,  Washington,  D.  C,  December  12,  191 1. 


HINDRANCES  OF  FEDERAL  LAW  TO  PROHIBITORY  ENFORCEMENT 


21 


The  struggle  to  get  protection  from  the  interstate 
liquor  traffic  for  states  and  territories  in  which  prohibi- 
tion or  no-license  existed  has  had  an  interesting  history. 
The  Constitution  states  that  "  Congress  shall  have  power 
to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  among 
the  several  states,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes."1  This 
struggle  therefore  has  focused  in  the  effort  to  prevent 
the  clause  from  being  used  as  a  means  for  carrying  on 
the  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  through  local  agencies 
in  the  violation  of  state  laws.  In  the  License  Cases* 
which  were  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  1847,  m  passing 
upon  the  operations  of  this  grant  of  commercial  power 
to  Congress  in  the  absence  of  Congressional  legislation, 
the  doctrine  was  confirmed  by  the  barest  of  majorities 
that  legislation  by  Congress  was  essential  to  prohibit 
the  action  of  the  states  upon  the  subject  of  liquor  legis- 
lation. In  other  words,  Congressional  legislation  was 
essential  to  prohibit  the  action  of  the  state  in  its  control 
over  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquor.  This  doctrine  of 
concurrent  power  was  soon  overruled,  however,  for  four 
years  later  in  Cooley  v.  Port  Wardens3  the  court  held 
that  Congress  had  plenary  power  over  interstate  com- 
merce. 

In  1886  the  Twentieth  General  Assembly  of  the  State 
of  Iowa  amended  the  code  of  the  state  by  an  act4  which 
forbade  common  carriers  to  bring  intoxicating  liquors 
into  the  state  from  any  other  state  or  territory  without 
first  being  furnished  with  a  certificate  under  the  seal  of 
the  auditor  of  the  county  to  which  it  was  to  be  transported 
or  consigned,  certifying  that  the  consignee  or  the  person 
to  whom  it  was  to  be  transported  or  delivered  was  author- 
ized to  sell  intoxicating  liquors  in  the  county.  On  March 
19,  1888,  in  passing  on  the  constitutionality  of  this  law, 
the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Bowman  v.  Chicago 
and  Northwestern  R.  R.  Co.  upheld  the  doctrine  of 
plenary  power.  It  maintained  that,  although  the  law  was 
"  enacted  without  the  purpose  of  affecting  interstate 
commerce  but  as  a  part  of  a  general  system  designed  to 
protect  the  health  and  morals  of  the  people  against  the 
evils  resulting  from  the  unrestricted  manufacture  and  sale 
of  intoxicating  liquors  within  the  state,"  it  was  "  neither 
an  inspection  law  nor  a  quarantine  law,"  but  was  "essen- 
tially a  regulation  of  commerce  between  the  states,  affect- 
ing interstate  commerce  at  an  essential  and  vital  part,  and 
not  being  sanctioned  by  the  authority,  expressed  or  im- 
plied, of  Congress,"  it  was  repugnant  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.     Under  this  decision,  then, 


"  they  had  the  right  to  import  this  beer  into  that  state, 
and  in  the  view  which  we  have  expressed  they  have  the 
right  to  sell  it,  by  which  act  alone  it  would  become 
mingled  in  the  common  mass  of  property  within  the 
state.  Up  to  that  point  of  time  we  hold  that  in  the 
absence  of  Congressional  permission  to  do  so  the  state 
has  no  power  to  interfere  by  seizure  or  any  other  action 
in  the  prohibition  of  the  importation  and  sale  by  the 
foreign  or  non-resident  importer."5 

In  1890,  again,  an  opportunity  was  given  to  test  the 
Iowa  prohibitory  law  as  far  as  it  placed  restrictions  upon 
the  importation  of  intoxicating  liquors  from  other  states 
and  its  sale  in  "original  packages."  A  Peoria  (111.) 
brewing  firm  had  shipped  a  quantity  of  liquor  to  Keokuk, 
Iowa,  to  be  sold  in  the  "original  packages."  A  por- 
tion of  the  liquor  was  seized  by  the  city  marshal  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  being  kept  for  sale  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  prohibitory  law.  The  brewers  brought 
suit  to  recover  the  liquor  and  won  their  case  in  the 
Superior  Court  for  the  City  of  Keokuk.  The  defendants 
took  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Iowa,  where  the 
decision  of  the  lower  court  was  reversed.6  The  case  was 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and 
in  an  opinion  in  Leisey  v.  Hardin,  delivered  in  1890, 
Chief  Justice  Fuller  declared  that  the  right  to  transport 
liquor  from  one  state  to  another  included  by  implication 
the  right  of  the  importer  to  sell  it  in  the  "  original  pack- 
age "  at  the  place  where  the  transit  terminated,  and  con- 
sequently the  section  of  the  Iowa  prohibitory  law  which 
forbade  the  sale  of  imported  liquors  in  the  "  original  pack- 
ages "  was  in  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.7  In  commenting  upon  the  effect  of  this  decision, 
in  the  opinion  delivered  in  re  Van  Vliet,  Judge  Caldwell 
of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court,  stated  : 

It  is  a  notorious  fact  and  a  part  of  the  public  history  of  the 
country  of  which  the  court  is  bound  to  take  judicial  notice 
that  this  decision  led  to  the  opening  up,  in  the  states  which 
prohibited  the  traffic  in  liquor  or  imposed  a  high  license  on 
the  traffic,  of  what  were  popularly  called  "  original  package 
houses."  Liquor  imported  in  packages  of  all  forms  and  sizes, 
but  all  original  packages,  was  sold  in  these  houses.  In  this 
way  the  retail  traffic  in  liquor  was  practically  established  and 
in  many  cases  by  the  most  irresponsible  and  unsuitable  persons 
who  were  not  citizens  of  the  state  and  were  indifferent  to  its 
welfare.  Peaceful  and  quiet  communities  from  which  the  sale 
of  liquor  had  been  banished  for  years,  were  suddenly  afflicted 
with  all  the  evils  of  the  liquor  traffic.    The  seats  of  learning 


1  Section  8. 

1  S  Howard,  504. 

*  12  Howard,  299. 

*  Act  No.  143,  Session  of  1886. 


0  125  U.  S.,  465. 

8  D.  E.  Clark,  "  The  History  of  Liquor  Legislation  in  Iowa,"  in  Iowa 
Journal  of  History  and  Politics,  vol.  6,  p.  579  (1908). 
'  135  U.  S..  100. 


22 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


were  invaded  by  the  original  package  vender,  and  the  youth  of 
the  state  gathered  there  were  corrupted  and  demoralized,  and 
disorder,  violence  and  crime  reigned  where  only  peace  and 
order  had  been  known  before.  The  invaded  communities  were 
powerless  to  protect  themselves.  They  could  neither  regu- 
late, tax,  restrain,  or  prohibit  the  traffic.1 

As  a  result  of  these  conditions,  petitions  were  sent  to 
Congress  from  all  parts  of  the  country  asking  for  the 
passage  of  a  law  prohibiting  the  transportation  of  intox- 
icating liquors  into  or  through  a  prohibition  state.2 
Congress  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  comply  with  these 
requests,  but  on  August  8,  1890,  it  passed  an  act  com- 
monly known  as  the  Wilson  Bill  which  had  been  intro- 
duced by  Senator  James  S.  Wilson  of  Iowa.  The  act,  a 
direct  blow  at  the  "original   package"  traffic,  provided: 

That  all  fermented,  distilled  or  other  intoxicating  liquors  or 
liquids  transported  into  any  State,  or  Territory,  or  remaining 
therein  for  use,  consumption,  sale  or  storage  therein,  shall 
upon  arrival  in  such  State  or  Territory  be  subjected  to  the 
operation  and  effect  of  the  laws  of  such  State  or  Territory 
enacted  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  powers,  to  the  same  ex- 
tent and  in  the  same  manner  as  though  such  liquor  or  liquids 
has  been  produced  in  such  State  or  Territory  and  shall  not  be 
exempt  therefrom  by  reason  of  being  introduced  therein  in 
original  packages  or  otherwise.' 

The  constitutionality  of  the  Wilson  Act  was  first  up- 
held by  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  Eastern 
District  of  Arkansas  in  the  Iowa  case4  and  later  by  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  Kansas  case.5  In  a 
subsequent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  1898 6  it 
was  held  that  the  police  power  did  not  cause  "  the  power 
of  the  State  to  attach  to  an  interstate  commerce  ship- 
ment whilst  the  merchandise  was  in  transit  under  ship- 
ment and  until  its  arrival  at  the  point  of  destination  and 
delivery  there  to  the  consignee."  "  Upon  arrival  in  such 
State,"  the  phrase  found  in  the  Wilson  Act,  was  inter- 
preted to  mean  "  after  the  shipment  had  reached  its  point 
of  destination  and  had  actually  been  delivered  to  the  con- 
signee." This  interpretation  has  remained  the  rule  of 
decision  down  to  the  present  time.  Congress  has  en- 
acted no  law  modifying  the  situation  created  by  this 
decision.  Recent  legislation  has  been  purely  parliamen- 
tary. All  bills  proposing  to  supplement  the  Wilson 
Act  by  fixing  an  earlier  period  of  time  than  now  exists, 
when  the  State  may  have  full  jurisdiction  over  interstate 

1  In  re  Van  Vliet,  43,  Federal  Reporter,  761. 

'  Congressional  Record,  1st  Session,  51st  Congress,  Index,  p.  15. 

•  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xxvi,  p.  313. 
4  In  re  Van  Vliet,  ibid. 

•  In  re  Rahrer,  140  U.  S.,  545. 

•  Rhodes  v.  Iowa,  170  U.  S.,  412. 


shipments  of  intoxicating  liquors,  have  failed  of  en- 
actment. 

The  commonwealth  in  the  exercise  of  its  police  power, 
therefore,  cannot  interfere  with  an  interstate  shipment  of 
liquor  before  it  has  been  delivered  to  the  consignee.  Is 
it  reasonable  to  expect  that  the  commonwealth  will  get 
relief  from  this  situation?  If  a  modification  of  the  law 
is  to  be  made,  in  what  manner  will  it  probably  be  done? 
In  the  preceding  pages,  we  have  ventured  no  far  look 
into  the  future.  Prediction  in  reference  to  the  future 
would  be  hazardous  and  out-of-place  in  this  connection, 
but  a  further  analysis  will  make  the  situation  clearer. 

In  tracing  the  history  of  the  prohibitory  movement  in 
the  South  we  have  found  no  instance  of  prohibitory 
legislation  involving  directly  the  personal  use  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors.  The  commonwealth  and  the  National 
Government  still  regard  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  legiti- 
mate article  of  use.  The  extent  to  which  the  prohibition 
of  the  manufacture  and  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors 
reduces  its  consumption  of  liquor  has  never  been  de- 
termined.7 Comparative  statistics  of  public  and  private 
consumption  are  not  available,  so  that  generalizations  on 
this  point  are  out  of  question.  Recent  attempts  to  make 
an  estimate  have  no  probative  force  as  regards  this  diffi- 
cult and  disputed  question.  The  general  consumption 
of  alcohol  for  medicinal,  and  its  increasing  consump- 
tion for  industrial  purposes  mask  absolutely  the  con- 
sumption for  drinking  purposes.  The  amount  of  intoxi- 
cating liquor  produced  in  the  country  gives  little  clue  to 
the  amount  consumed  as  drink  in  any  state. 

Table  I  shows  that  the  southern  commonwealths,  in 
their  endeavor  to  control  the  use  of  liquor  through  the 
restriction  of  its  sale,  are  exhausting  every  means  in  the 
use  of  their  police  power.  Items  Nos.  16  to  21  inclusive, 
indicate  the  means  that  have  been  already  resorted  to 
and  the  results  show  that  a  more  adequate  control  has 
been  gained  over  the  intra-state  commerce  in  liquors  in 
local-option  commonwealths,  while  no  commonwealth  in 
the  exercise  of  its  police  power  has  been  able  to  solve 
the  interstate  commerce  problem.  Every  no-license 
community  has  had  the  "  blind  tiger."  Liquor  offenders 
are  the  most  difficult  class  of  offenders,  and  stringent 
measures  have  been  passed  in  the  South  to  handle  this 
type  of  offenders.  In  Item  No.  17  the  commonwealth 
through  the  exercise  of  its  police  power  controls  intra- 
state shipments.  Interstate  shipments  are  without  the 
police  control  of  the  commonwealth.      Items  Nos.   18 

1  It  would  require  the  authority  of  the  general  government  and  an 
immense  expenditure  of  money  to  make  an  exhaustive  statistical  in- 
quiry into  the  subject  of  the  amount  actually  consumed  in  drink;  and 
it  is  very  doubtful  if  even  the  government  could  obtain  all  the  facts 
necessary  to  reach  a  valid  conclusion. 


HINDRANCES  OF  FEDERAL  LA  W  TO  PROHIBITORY  ENFORCEMENT 


23 


and  20  while  controlling  intra-state  shipments,  indirectly 
affect  foreign  shipments.  Item  No.  20  has  been  declared 
constitutional  when  applied  to  interstate  shipments.  The 
Supreme  Court  held  in  Delameter  v.  South  Dakota  that 
"although  a  state  may  not  forbid  a  resident  therein 
from  ordering  for  his  own  use  intoxicating  liquor  from 
another  state,  it  may  forbid  the  carrying  on  within  its 
borders  of  the  business  of  soliciting  orders  for  such 
liquor,  although  such  liquor  may  only  contemplate  a 
contract  resulting  from  final  acceptance  in  another 
state." '  The  same  court  has  decided  that  Item  No.  19 
does  not  give  the  commonwealth  the  right  to  place  a 
direct  burden  upon  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress 
to  tax.  In  the  opinion  in  Flaherty  v.  Hanson*  it  was 
affirmed  that,  the  mere  payment  of  such  tax  and  "wholly 
without  reference  to  the  doing  of  the  person  of  an  act 
within  the  state  which  is  subject  to  the  regulating 
authority  of  the  state,  cannot  be  made  an  incriminating 
fact  under  a  state  statute,"  but  this  receipt  might  be 
offered  in  evidence  and  create  a  prima  facie  presumption 
that  the  person  paying  the  tax  and  holding  the  receipt 
was  engaged  in  the  business  of  selling  liquor.  While 
this  latter  problem  was  not  before  the  court  it  suggested 
that  such  statutes  were  probably  constitutional. 

C.  O.  D.  shipments  of  intoxicating  liquors  in  inter- 
state commerce  have  foiled  all  efforts  to  control  them. 
The  actual  transportation  and  delivery  of  such  liquors 
has  been  left  untrammeled,  and  consequently  it  has  been 
impossible  to  exclude  completely  all  agencies  between 
the  buyer  and  the  seller.  The  Wilson  Act,  as  sustained 
in  Rhodes  v.  Iowa,  put  an  end  to  the  sale  of  liquor 
in  "  original  packages "  by  means  of  resident  agents. 
Liquor  dealers  then  sought  to  accomplish  their  ends 
through  C.  O.  D.  shipments.  They  manipulated  this 
scheme  in  two  ways.  In  the  first  place,  the  usual  method 
was  to  make  the  carrier  the  agent  of  the  shipper  for  the 
collection  of  the  purchase  price  of  the  liquor  at  or  before 
its  delivery.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  this  method 
was  constitutional.  This  position  was  supported  when, 
in  Adams  Express  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  on  May  13,  1907, 
the  court  held  that  Act  No.  14  of  1902  prohibiting  C. 
O.  D.  shipments  of  liquor  into  prohibition  territory  in 
Kentucky3  was  unconstitutional.'*  In  an  earlier  ruling, 
on  January  3,  1905,  in  American  Express  Co.  v.  Iowa, 
the  court  ruled  that  a  package  of  intoxicating  liquors  re- 
ceived by  an  express  company  in  one  state  to  be  carried 
to  another  state,  and  there  delivered  to  the  consignee 

'  205  U.  S.,  93- 

»  21s  U.  S.,  515. 

•See  no.  24,  notes  to  Table  I. 

4  206  U.  S.,  129. 


C.  O.  D.  for  the  price  of  the  package  and  the  expressage, 
is  interstate  commerce  and  is  under  the  protection  of  the 
commerce  clause  of  the  federal  Constitution  and  can  not, 
prior  to  its  actual  delivery  to  the  consignee,  be  confis- 
cated under  the  prohibitory  laws  of  the  state.5 

In  the  second  place,  liquor  dealers  accomplished 
their  purpose  by  means  of  bills  of  lading  with  drafts 
attached  for  the  purchase  price  of  the  liquor.  In  this 
case  a  dual  agency  was  employed.  The  carrier  trans- 
ported and  delivered  the  liquor,  while  a  bank  or  some 
other  agency  collected  the  purchase  price  and  delivered 
the  bill  of  lading  by  means  of  which  the  purchaser  ob- 
tained the  liquor  from  the  carrier.  The  use  of  these  two 
methods  continued  and  the  police  power  of  the  state 
could  not  interfere. 

Congress  again  made  an  effort  to  relieve  the  situation. 
Without  touching  the  constitutional  problem  involved,  it 
passed  on  March  4,  1909,  the  Humphreys-Miller-Knox 
Bill.  This  Act  amended  the  Penal  Code  by  adding  three 
sections  thereto.  Section  238  prohibits  the  delivery  of 
liquors  shipped  in  interstate  commerce  to  other  than  a 
bona  fide  consignee  ;  section  239  forbids  the  shipment  of 
such  liquors  in  interstate  commerce  "  collect  on  de- 
livery;" and  section  240  requires  the  plain  branding  of 
all  such  liquors  on  the  outside  of  the  package  so  that  the 
name  of  the  consignee,  and  the  nature  and  quantity  of  its 
contents  shall  be  plainly  shown.6  The  framers  of  the 
act  intended  that  Section  239  should  cover  both  forms 
of  C.  O.  D.  shipments.  The  Act  has  relieved  the  em- 
barassment  furthered  by  the  decisions  in  the  Express 
Company  cases  and  Judge  Amidon  of  the  United  States 
Circuit  Court,  in  an  opinion  delivered  on  September  27, 
191 1,  in  United  States  v.  First  National  Bank  of  Ana- 
moose,  has  determined  that  interstate  shipments  of  in- 
toxicating liquors  by  means  of  drafts  and  bills  of  lading 
are  also  illegal  under  the  section.7 

5 196  U.  S.,  139. 

*U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  vol.  xxxv,  pp.  1136-1137. 

'As  recited  by  the  court,  the  facts  of  the  case  were  these  :  One  Dan. 
Meyers,  residing  at  Anamoose  (N.  D.),  sent  an  order  to  the  Hamm 
Brewing  Company,  doing  business  at  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  for  a  case  of 
beer.  The  brewing  company  in  filling  the  order  delivered  the  beer  to 
the  Minneapolis,  St.  Paul  and  Sault  Ste.  Marie  Railway  Co.,  and  re- 
ceived from  it  a  bill  of  lading,  with  an  agreement  on  the  part  of  the 
company  that  it  would  not  deliver  the  beer  to  Meyers  until  he  pre- 
sented the  bill  of  lading  to  its  agent  at  Anamoose.  Thereupon  the 
brewing  company  attached  a  sight  draft  for  the  purchase  price  of  the 
beer  to  the  bill  of  lading,  and  sent  the  same  to  the  First  National  Bank 
of  Anamoose,  which  undertook  and  agreed  with  the  brewing  company 
to  collect  the  draft  from  Meyers  and  deliver  to  him  the  bill  of  lading, 
so  that  he  could  present  the  same  to  the  railway  and  receive  the  beer, 
and  thereby  complete  the  sale  and  delivery  of  the  same,  and  that  the 
bank  carried  out  this  agreement  with  full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts 
above  stated.     190  Federal  Reporter,  336. 


24 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


The  Humphreys-Miller-Knox  Act  is  proving  effective 
for  the  prohibition  of  the  particular  features  of  interstate 
commerce  in  liquor  which  it  was  designed  to  prevent. 
The  seller  has  been  denied  the  agency  privilege  he  had 
so  long  enjoyed.  But  transportation  between  buyer  and 
seller  is  still  free;  the  place  of  contract  rather  than  the 
place  of  delivery  is  still  considered  the  place  of  sale.  It 
is  certain  that  prohibition  communities  and  common- 
wealths will  continue,  as  until  the  present,  to  expect  and 
demand  further  relief  from  the  difficulties  that  still  im- 
pede the  enforcement  of  law  with  respect  to  interstate 
shipments  of  liquor.  The  course  along  which  further 
relief  will  be  forthcoming  cannot  at  this  time  be  defi- 
nitely determined.  For,  is  it  possible  that  a  full  and  com- 
plete protection  to  the  commonwealths  in  the  wider 
exercise  of  their  police  powers  for  the  prohibition  of 
the  liquor  traffic  can  be  given  without  infringing  upon 
the  right  of  personal  use  which  is  still  universally  recog- 
nized? 

The  solution  of  this  problem  may  come  in  any  one  of 
several  ways.  It  has  been  suggested,  in  the  first  place, 
that  if  a  constitutional  act  could  be  passed  turning  over 
to  the  commonwealth  the  control  of  all  imported  liquors 
upon  their  arrival  within  the  borders  of  the  common- 
wealth, except  such  as  were  imported  for  personal  use, 
it  would  give  the  commonwealth  some  assistance  in 
breaking  up  the  illegal  traffic  in  liquors.  The  Constitu- 
tion does  not  give  this  right  to-day.  In  1908,  the  Okla- 
homa legislature  passed  a  prohibition  act  in  which  had 
been  incorporated  stringent  search  and  seizure  meas- 
ures.1 These  measures  were  later  sustained  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  that  commonwealth  as  a  valid  exer- 
cise of  the  state's  police  power.  Soon  after,  however, 
the  United  States  Judges  for  the  Eastern  and  the  West- 
ern Districts  for  the  state  of  Oklahoma,  issued  writs  of 
injunction,  prohibiting  the  State,  county,  municipal  and 
other  officers  of  the  commonwealth  from  interfering,  by 
search  and  seizure  processes,  with  shipments  of  intoxi- 
cating liquors  from  points  without,  to  consignees  resi- 
dent within  the  commonwealth  of  Oklahoma.  The 
State  thereupon  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  a  writ  of  prohibition  to  enjoin  these 
Federal  Judges  from  interfering  with  the  enforcement  of 
Oklahoma's  prohibitory  laws.  In  a  decision  delivered 
on  April  3,  191 1,  the  Court  refused  to  issue  the  writ  of 
prohibition,  contending  that  "  the  State  had  not  availed 
herself  of  the  otherwise  complete  and  adequate  measures 
of  relief  which  would  have  been  afforded  by  following 
the  orderly  and  regular  course  of  judicial  procedure." 
"The  interlocutory  injunction  can  be  corrected  in  the 

1  Act  no.  69  of  1908,  §§  S  and  6. 


Circuit  Court  of  Appeals."'  Oklahoma  had  failed  in  her 
effort  to  gain  the  right  judicially  to  determine,  under 
valid  state  search  and  seizure  laws,  whether  imported 
liquors  are  held  for  the  purpose  of  violating  state  laws 
or  whether  they  are  in  good  faith  for  the  personal  use  of 
the  importer.  The  administrative  features  of  the  en- 
forcement of  search  and  seizure  laws  present  serious 
difficulties.  How  and  in  what  way  could  it  reasonably 
and  practicably  be  determined  at  the  time  the  package 
of  liquor  arrives  within  a  commonwealth  and  before  its 
delivery  to  the  consignee,  from  an  examination  of  the 
package,  that  it  would  be  devoted  exclusively  to  the 
consignee's  personal  use  instead  of  being  offered  for  sale 
by  him,  under  the  guise  of  personal  use?  Every  in- 
ebriate could,  in  this  way  and  as  is  his  constitutional 
right  to-day,3  satisfy  his  appetite  as  fully  as  though  he 
lived  in  a  license  state. 

In  other  quarters,  it  is  maintained  that  Congress 
should  withdraw  its  control  over  interstate  shipments  of 
liquor.  But  has  not  Congress  withdrawn  already  as  far 
as  it  may?  The  Federal  Supreme  Court  has  sustained 
the  right  of  the  commonwealth  to  prohibit  the  produc- 
tion of  liquors,  and  the  Federal  Congress  has  removed 
from  imported  liquors  the  incidental  right  of  sale  in 
"original  packages."  The  commonwealth  has  not  yet 
prohibited  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors.  It  is  prob- 
able, should  prohibition  commonwealths  prohibit  the 
use,  that  Congress  would  have  power  to  deal  with  such 
liquors  as  it  has  dealt  with  lottery  tickets4  and  other 
commodities,  prohibit  their  transportation  from  one 
commonwealth  to  another.  But,  as  was  contended  in 
Scott  v .  Donald,5  as  long  as  such  liquors  are  treated  by 
the  laws  of  the  commonwealths  as  legitimate  articles  of 
use  and  commerce,  so  long  must  they  be  accorded  the 
same  measure  of  protection  as  subjects  of  interstate  com- 
merce as  is  given  to  other  property.  Will  the  common- 
wealth prohibit  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors?  We  are 
again  dealing  with  the  future.  Our  analysis  leads  us  to 
conclude  that  there  are  no  indications  that  such  legisla- 
tion will  be  forthcoming  in  the  immediate  future.  Under 
either  local  option  or  local  prohibition  many  persons 
who  are  not  prohibitionists  in  the  absolute  sense,  habit- 
ually favor  no-license  legislation  in  the  place  where  they 
live  or  where  their  business  is  carried  on.  By  fore- 
thought such  persons  can  get  their  own  supplies  from 
localities    where    license    prevails.      "  If    their   supplies 

'Ex  parte  Oklahoma,  220  U.  S.,  191. 

'  Louisville  &  Nashville  R.  R.  Co.  v.  F.  W.  Cook  Brewing  Co.,  223 
U.  S.,  no.  1,  p.  70. 

*  Lottery  Case,  188  U.  S.,  321. 
6 165  U.  S.,  91. 


HINDRANCES  OF  FEDERAL  LAW  TO  PROHIBITORY  ENFORCEMENT 


25 


should  be  cut  off  they  might  vote  differently."1  The 
prohibitory  movement  in  the  South  is  not  a  temperance 
movement.  As  has  been  suggested  in  Chapter  II  it  is  a 
movement  to  abolish  the  public  retail  liquor  store. 

We  have  now  traced  the  history  of  the  prohibitory 
movement  in  the  South  from  the  beginning  to  the  present 
time.  We  have  seen  that  the  saloon  has  gradually  dis- 
appeared from  one  community  after  another,  and  from 
one  county  after  another  until  finally  a  state  prohibitory 
law  has  been  enacted  excluding  the  traffic  in  intoxicating 
liquors  from  the  limits  of  the  commonwealth.  The  dis- 
pensary has  been  tried  as  a  substitute  for  both  the  saloon 
and  local  prohibition.  Most  of  these  communities  have 
returned  to  prohibition.  The  present  problem  for  the 
prohibition  commonwealth  is  preeminently  the  control  of 
the  illicit  sale  of  liquor. 

The  topics  treated  in  this  study  up  to  this  point  have 

'C   W.   Eliot,   "A   Study  of   American   Liquor   Laws,"   in  Atlantic 
Monthly,  vol.  79,  p.  181. 


had  a  logical  sequence.  The  sale  of  liquor  in  the  South 
has  been  our  problem.  We  have  traced  the  progress  in 
the  gradual  repression  of  the  saloon.  The  promise  of 
finding  a  satisfactory  substitute  for  the  saloon  in  the  dis- 
pensary assumed  at  one  time  in  the  United  States  an 
auspicious  character.  The  experiment  was  made  in  our 
field.  We  have  reviewed  its  history.  Finally,  in  this 
chapter  we  have  studied  the  efforts  that  have  been  made 
to  get  constitutional  protection  from  the  illicit  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  where  the  sale  of  such  is  prohibited 
by  law.  This  study,  since  the  struggle  has  been  made 
in  the  courts  and  in  Congress,  has  taken  us  beyond  our 
defined  field  and  we  have  been  concerned  with  a  nation- 
wide problem.  The  analysis  of  the  relation  that  the 
negro  has  borne  to  the  prohibitory  movement  in  the 
South,  a  relation  wholly  peculiar  to  southern  conditions 
and  therefore  of  primal  importance  to  any  interpretation 
of  the  prohibitory  movement  in  the  South,  must  be 
given.  This  problem  has  been  reserved  for  considera- 
tion in  the  chapter  immediately  following. 


CHAPTER  V 
The  Negro  as  a  Factor  in  the  Prohibitory  Movement 


"The  pretence  is  temperance.  .  .  .  The  real  underlying  compelling  cause  is  the  negro." — Watterson.1 


Many  causes  have  been  advanced  to  explain  the  pro- 
gress of  the  prohibition  movement  in  the  South.  The 
area  covered  in  this  investigation — the  area  in  which 
similar  methods  have  been  used  to  repress  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors — happens  also  to  be  the  home  of  the 
negro  race  in  America.  It  would  be  singular,  therefore, 
if  this  race  in  this  instance  should  escape  being  burdened 
in  a  biased  judgment  with  the  responsibility  for  this 
movement.  In  the  popular  magazine  articles  already 
referred  to,  no  writer  failed  to  assert  that  the  negro  was 
an  important  cause  for  the  movement.  In  its  crassest 
form  this  doctrine  asserts  that  the  negro  is  the  real 
cause  for  the  growth  of  no-license  area  in  southern 
commonwealths.  If  this  doctrine  has  any  relevancy  to 
fact,  it  could  if  true  be  established,  one  would  say,  by 
inductive  methods.  Along  such  lines  the  writer  has 
attacked  the  problem.  Judging  from  the  data  that  had 
already  been  collected,  the  hypothesis  that  the  purpose 
of  the  prohibitory  movement  in  the  South  was  to  make 
intoxicating  liquors  inaccessible  to  the  negro  without 
taking  them  away  from  the  more  resourceful  white  man, 
would  be  difficult  to  defend.  So  far  as  the  negroes  as  a 
race  are  addicted  to  liquor,  they  show  a  far  better  record 
than  does  the  white  race.2  With  this  preliminary  state- 
ment we  may  now  enter  upon  an  investigation  of  the 
problem. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  DATA 

The  data  forming  the  basis  for  this  study  have  been 
drawn  from  numerous  sources.  The  material  of  the 
investigation  will  be  presented  in  three  parts.  The  first 
part  is  an  extensive  study  of  the  whole  field  of  the  four- 
teen commonwealths.  The  second  part  is  a  study  of  the 
biennial  county  local-option  elections  in  Arkansas.  The 
third  part  is  an  intensive  study  of  the  precinct  vote  in 
the  elections-on-license  in  Maryland. 

1  Quoted  by  O'Reilly  in  The  Independent,  vol.  LXIII,  no.  3066,  p. 
564. 

*  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem,  chapter  6. 
26 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DATA  OF  PLATES  NOS.   I,  2,  3  and  4 

Plates  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3  show  the  distribution  of  no- 
license  area  in  southern  commonwealths  at  intervals  of 
about  ten  years.  On  each  plate  is  indicated  by  means  of 
dots  the  density  of  the  negro  population.  Each  dot  shows 
a  negro  population,  on  the  average  equal  to  ten  per  cent 
of  the  white  population,  i.  e.  one  dot  represents  a  range 
from  five  to  fourteen,  two  dots  from  fifteen  to  twenty-four, 
etc.  The  absence  of  a  dot  indicates  a  negro  population 
of  less  than  five  in  one  hundred  of  the  white  population. 

Plate  No.  1  shows  the  distribution  of  the  no-license 
areas  on  January  1,  1868.  The  possible  influence  that 
the  negro  might  have  exerted  on  the  no-license  legisla- 
tion in  the  South  during  the  period  of  thirty-three  years 
covered  in  this  map  was  at  its  minimum  and  that  for  two 
reasons.  In  the  first  place,  the  negro  during  this  per- 
iod was  not  a  political  factor  in  the  South.  At  the  close 
of  the  period  he  had  just  emerged  from  slavery.  In  the 
second  place,  in  all  of  the  fourteen  commonwealths  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  to  the  negro  had  been  pro- 
hibited for  generations.*  The  character  of  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  areas  on  Plate  No.  1  supports  the  assump- 
tion of  minimum  influence.  The  areas  are  found  in 
counties  of  all  degrees  of  negro  density ;  they  appear  in 
counties  which  lack  the  minimum  five  per  cent  negro 
population  and  they  are  found  in  three  of  the  Missis- 
sippi-River counties  of  the  lesser  densities.  The  circles 
are  located  without  reference  to  the  density  of  the  negro 
population.  In  the  period  of  its  origin,  then,  it  appears 
that  the  prohibitory  movement  in  the  South  is  a  response 
to  a  more  far-reaching  cause  than  one  that  could  arise 
because  of  diverse  racial  elements  in  a  particular  com- 
munity. The  southern  population  had  in  small  isolated 
groups,  the  one  group  absolutely  as  original  as  any 
other,  attempted  independently  the  solution  of  a  funda- 
mental social  problem. 

The  second  period  of  our  study  of  the  movement, 
covered  by  Plate  No.  2  extending  from  January  1,  1868, 

'Table  I,  item  no.  23. 


THE  NEGRO  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  THE  PROHIBITORY  MOVEMENT 


27 


to  January  1,  1877,  was  one  in  which  a  distinct  change 
in  the  status  of  the  negro  took  place.  Upon  his  eman- 
cipation the  time-long  restraint  of  Item  No.  23  was 
removed.  Thereafter  he  possessed  the  same  right  to 
purchase  intoxicating  liquor  that  the  white  man  had 
held.  Fully  as  important  for  our  problem,  also,  is  the 
fact  that  at  this  time  the  negro  entered  a  period  of 
distinct  political  activity.  Finally,  it  was  within  this 
period  that  general  legislation  was  introduced  to  supple- 
ment the  process  of  special  legislation  which  had  been 
almost  entirely  employed  previous  to  this  time.  The 
negro  was  in  no  sense  implicated,  however,  in  the  intro- 
duction of  this  second  method  of  legislation.  Needless 
to  say,  had  the  purpose  of  the  prohibitory  movement 
been  to  make  intoxicating  liquor  inaccessible  to  the 
negro,  the  introduction  of  the  local-option  policy  at  this 
time  was  most  inopportune.  It  was  far  easier  for  the 
"  ruling  classes "  in  the  use  of  the  special-legislation 
method  to  keep  the  control  of  the  liquor  traffic  in  their 
own  hands.  The  local-option  policy  gave  the  negroes, 
where  the  negro  population  was  of  sufficient  density, 
this  power  whenever  they  wished  then  to  exercise  it.  If, 
then,  the  hypothesis  we  are  analyzing  can  be  established, 
a  definite  change  in  the  distribution  and  the  growth  of 
the  no-license  areas  should  appear  on  Plate  No.  2.  On 
the  contrary,  an  examination  of  the  plate  will  show  that 
during  this  troublous  period  of  political  life  no  change 
from  the  previous  period  had  taken  place.  The  gradual 
growth  of  the  previous  period  as  indicated  on  Plate  No. 
1  and  in  Table  I  had  in  this  period  been  merely  aug- 
mented, making  the  division  into  two  periods  at  January 
1,  1868  appear  perhaps  arbitrary.  Counties  that  had  a 
few  local-prohibition  areas  in  1868  have  many  in  1877, 
and  counties  with  no  prohibition  areas  in  1868  have 
several  in  1877. 

On  Plate  No.  3  we  may  ascertain  the  changes  that 
appeared  with  the  introduction  of  general  legislation. 
A  study  of  this  plate  shows  that  the  policy  of  gaining 
prohibition  through  special  enactments  which  originated 
early  in  the  no-license  legislation  of  the  South,  continued 
to  be  used  in  the  township  local-option  period.  On 
this  plate  no  perceptible  change  appears  in  the  relative 
distribution  of  the  local-prohibition  areas.  Finally,  a 
similar  conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  the  legislation 
enacted  in  the  county  local-option  period.  The  legisla- 
tion of  this  period  as  shown  on  Plate  No.  4  opened  with 
January  1,  1887,  and  extends  to  the  present  time.  The 
policy  of  general  legislation  proved  to  involve,  as  time 
progressed,  the  extension  of  the  area  of  the  legislative 
unit.  Items  Nos.  6,  8,  and  9  of  Table  I  indicate  no 
intermediate  area  between  the  county  and  the  common- 
wealth.    We  may  here  study  forces  which  tend  to  hinder 


the  transition  from  county  local-option  to  state  prohi- 
bition. What  is  the  nature  of  the  population  in  a  county 
that  retained  the  saloon  ?  Has  the  negro  in  any  way  aided 
in  hindering  the  transition  from  license  to  no-license? 

In  Arkansas  we  find  to-day,  in  comparing  the  distri- 
bution of  the  counties  with  a  population  of  high  negro 
density  as  indicated  on  Plate  No.  3  with  the  license 
counties  at  the  present  time  as  indicated  by  feathered 
boundary  lines  on  Plate  No.  4,  that  with  one  exception 
the  six  counties  of  highest  negro  density  are  license. 
These  five  counties  have  never  voted  for  no-license. 
Three  of  the  other  license  counties  have  cities  of  over 
ten  thousand  inhabitants.  There  is  only  one  city  of  five 
thousand  inhabitants  located  in  a  no-license  county.  At 
the  opening  of  the  prohibition  regime  in  Tennessee  the 
three  largest  cities  in  the  commonwealth  were  located  in 
three  of  the  four  license  counties.  One  of  these  counties 
had  a  negro  density  of  120.  A  similar  analysis  will  show 
that  in  Mississippi,  the  Mississippi-River  license  counties 
had  on  December  31,  1908,  a  heavy  negro  density,  and 
that  the  three  southern-most  of  these  counties  had  each 
a  city  of  over  seven  thousand  inhabitants.  One  of  the 
three  Gulf-of-Mexico  license  counties  had  a  city  of  five 
thousand  inhabitants.  A  comparison  of  the  separate 
map  of  Alabama  on  Plate  No.  4  with  the  map  of  Plate 
No.  3  shows  that  four  of  the  seven  license  counties  have 
a  majority  negro  population,  and  that  the  other  three 
license  counties  are  of  relatively  high  negro  density.  In 
four  of  the  license  counties  there  is  a  city  of  over  eight 
thousand  inhabitants.  At  the  opening  of  the  prohibitory 
regime  in  Georgia  all  of  the  nine  largest  cities  of  the 
commonwealth  were  located  in  license  counties.  The 
same  correlation  of  high  negro  density  with  license  that 
we  discovered  in  Alabama,  Arkansas  and  Mississippi 
may  be  noted  in  Georgia,  especially  in  the  southwestern 
section  of  the  commonwealth.  In  Florida  the  four  cities 
of  five  thousand  inhabitants  are  located  in  license 
counties.  In  three  of  these  counties  there  is  a  majority 
negro  population.  In  South  Carolina  the  county  with 
the  highest  negro  density  retained  the  dispensary  in  the 
election  of  August  17,  1909.  The  counties  of  high  negro 
density  are  too  widely  distributed  for  any  further  analy- 
sis. The  two  largest  cities  in  the  commonwealth  are 
located  in  dispensary  counties.  In  North  Carolina  on 
December  31,  1908,  four  of  the  twelve  cities  of  over  five 
thousand  inhabitants  were  located  in  license  counties. 
Eight  of  the  twenty-five  license  counties  had  a  majority 
negro  population,  while  twenty  had  a  negro  density  of 
over  70.  We  find  again  in  North  Carolina  a  correlation 
between  high  negro  density  and  license. 

There  is  then  in  this  analysis  no  indication  that  the 
prohibitory  movement  in  the  South  has  been  due  to  the 


28 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


presence  of  the  negro.  In  other  words,  the  contention 
that,  "  the  extraordinary  development  of  the  policy  of 
special  legislation  in  the  South  ....  is  rather  due  to  the 
determination  of  the  political  aristocracy,  especially  in 
the  black  belt,  to  keep  the  government  in  their  own 
hands," '  cannot  be  established  as  a  general  proposition." 
We  conclude,  therefore,  that  .... 

(a)  "the  real  underlying  compelling:  cause"  of  the  pro- 
hibitory movement  in  the  South  could  not  have  been  the 
negro. 

(b)  the  possible  correlation  of  license  with  populations  of 
high  negro  density  suggests  the  possibility  of  further 
verification. 

(c)  the  populations  in  cities  approximating  or  exceeding  ten 
thousand  inhabitants  generally  adopt  license  as  the  best 
policy  for  the  control  of  the  liquor  traffic  within  the  limits 
of  the  city.8 

A  further  study  would  probably  show  that  the  negro 
population  in  a  large  city  emphasises  the  general  urban 
countenance  of  the  license  policy.  This  analysis  is  not 
necessary,  however,  to  overthrow  the  general  proposition 
we  are  analyzing  in  this  chapter.  It  will  be  admitted,  at 
all  events,  that  until  a  satisfactory  substitute  for  the 
saloon  is  found,  an  institution  that  will  meet  the  peculiar 
conditions  of  city  life,  the  disposition  of  large  cities  to 
disregard  prohibitory  law  will  continue  even  though  fur- 
ther relief  is  gained  from  the  interstate  traffic  in  liquors. 
The  general  retention  of  the  license  policy  in  the  com- 
munities with  populations  of  high  negro  density  suggests 
the  wisdom  of  further  investigation  as  to  the  mechanism 
of  this  relation.  Indirectly  this  will  throw  light  upon 
the  general  conclusion  based  upon  the  data  of  the  first 
part  of  this  analysis.  Arkansas,  a  commonwealth  with  a 
distinctly  segregated  population  and  one  in  which  the 
county  through  a  general  statute  has  been  free  for  thirty 
years  in  the  exercise  of  its  control  over  the  liquor  traffic 
within  its  borders,  presents  data  which  are  comparable 
in  length  of  time  over  which  the  record  is  available  to 
those  of  no  other  commonwealth. 

'C.  M.  L.  Sites,  Centralized  Administration  of  Liquor  Laws  (New 
York,  1899),  P-  152. 

2  For  example,  the  thirty-nine  counties  of  Georgia  which  gained 
county  prohibition  through  special  legislative  acts,  thus  apparently 
avoiding  the  disquieting  strife  of  constantly  recurring  county  local- 
option  elections,  were  of  the  following  negro  densities  :  less  than  fifty 
negroes  per  hundred  of  the  white  population,  nineteen  counties  ;  be- 
tween fifty  and  one  hundred  negroes  per  hundred  of  the  white  popula- 
tion, eight  counties ;  between  one  and  two  hundred  negroes  per  hun- 
dred of  the  white  population,  nine  counties ;  and  over  two  hundred 
negroes  per  hundred  of  the  white  population,  three  counties.  Seventy 
per  cent  of  the  counties  contained  a  majority  white  population. 

'For  example,  the  experience  of  Atlanta  and  Birmingham  under 
prohibition  through  county  local-option  elections. 


II 
THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  ARKANSAS  DATA 

The  negroes  of  this  commonwealth  had  by  1890  be- 
come definitely  segregated ;  the  counties  with  a  high 
negro  density  were  located  in  the  southern  part  of  the 
state  and  along  the  Mississippi  River.  The  northern 
and  western  counties  had  few  negroes.4  Inasmuch  as 
there  were  counties  predominately  negro  as  well  as 
white,  this  commonwealth  affords  opportunity  to  study 
the  operation  of  the  same  liquor  legislation  in  communi- 
ties very  diverse  in  character.  Arkansas  has  had  a 
biennial  county  local-option  election  law  since  18825  and 
the  negro  has  not  been  disfranchised  in  this  common- 
wealth.6 It  is,  therefore,  possible  to  study  the  influence 
he  has  exerted  in  these  local-option  elections.  One 
thousand  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  county  elections 
have  been  held  and  a  "change  in  sentiment"7  was  indi- 
cated two  hundred  and  thirteen  times. 

For  the  analysis  of  the  relationship  we  are  about  to 
examine  the  first  step  is  to  make  five  groups  of  the 
counties.*  The  first  group  includes  all  of  the  seventy- 
five  counties  of  the  commonwealth.  The  second  group 
includes  the  counties  having  a  majority  of  negro  voters 
in  the  voting  population  of  1900.  There  are  sixteen 
counties  in  this  group.  The  third  group  includes  the 
other  fifty-nine  counties  of  the  commonwealth.  The 
fourth  group  includes  the  six  negro  counties  with  more 
than  two  hundred  and  fifty  negro  voters  to  one  hundred 
of  the  white  voting  population,  while  the  last  group  con- 
tains the  seven  counties  of  less  than  a  two-tenths  per 
cent  negro  voting  population.  The  histograms,  Figures 
2  and  3,  Plate  No.  6  illustrate  accurately  the  results  of 
the  local-option  elections  held  in  the  counties  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  groups.  The  variables  plotted  as  ordi- 
nates  in  the  diagrams,  "percentage  of  the  vote  cast  for 
no-license,"  should  be  interpreted  to  mean  the  ratio  of 
the  no-license  vote  cast  to  that  cast  for  license.  The 
time  intervals  are  plotted  as  abscissae.  The  numerals  in 
the  legend  opposite  the  graph  of  Figure  2  indicate  the 
number  of  negro  voters  per  hundred  of  the  white  voting 

4  See  Plate  No.  3. 

5  Table  I,  item  No.  8. 
•Table  I,  item  No.  24. 

'The  phrase  "  change  in  sentiment"  is  here  used  to  mean  a  reversal 
in  the  vote  from  the  result  of  the  previous  election,  either  from  license 
to  no-license  or  the  converse.  In  eighty-one  and  four-tenths  per  cent 
of  the  elections  there  were  no  reversals,  which  goes  to  disprove  the 
assumption  held  quite  generally  that  a  general  local-option  law  creates 
a  marked  instability  of  sentiment. 

8 The  statistical  data  for  the  different  groups  are  given  in  Table  II. 
The  graphic  representation  of  the  biennial  county  vote-on-license  for 
the  white  and  the  negro  groups  is  given  on  Plate  No.  6. 


THE  NEGRO  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  THE  PROHIBITORY  MOVEMENT 


29 


population,  and  opposite  the  graph  of  Figure  3,  the 
number  of  negro  voters  in  two  thousand  of  the  white 
voting  population. 

We  are  now  able  to  analyze  the  influence  of  negro  in 
the  local-option  elections.  Figure  2,  Plate  No.  6,  shows 
that  five  of  the  six  counties  of  the  fifth  group  have  voted 
for  license  in  every  election.  One  county  has  changed 
its  status  three  times  during  the  period.  A  comparison 
of  Figure  2  with  Figure  3  will  show  that  the  saloon  has 
escaped  in  the  group  of  negro  counties  the  vicissitudes 
that  it  met  in  the  elections  in  the  group  of  white  coun- 
ties. In  1902  all  of  the  latter  group  voted  for  no-license 
and  since  that  date  one  county  has  returned  to  license 
for  one  period.  Figure  1  illustrates  the  data  of  Division 
IV,  Table  IV.  Here  we  find  again  that  wherever  there 
is  a  population  of  high  negro  density,  the  counties  have 
a  marked  tendency  toward  stability  in  sentiment  and 
that  to  retain  the  saloon. 

We  conclude  therefore,  from  the  data  presented  in  the 
second  part  of  this  analysis,  that — 

(a)  there  is  a  high  correlation  between  the  license 
policy  and  counties  of  high  negro  density. 

(b)  there  has  been  a  far  greater  stability  in  sentiment 
favoring  the  retention  of  the  saloon  in  the  counties  of 
high  negro  density  than  in  the  counties  with  few 
negroes. 

Ill 

THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  MARYLAND  DATA 

We  are  able  to  push  our  inductive  analysis  one  step 
further.  In  a  number  of  the  southern  commonwealths 
the  material  for  the  investigation  is  extant.  We  cannot 
determine  definitely  the  influence  that  the  negro  has 
exerted  as  a  voter  on  the  prohibitory  movement  until 
material  is  available  for  an  analysis  of  the  precinct  vote 
of  the  election-on-license.  For  this  it  is  necessary  to 
have  in  addition  to  the  precinct  vote,  the  registration  of 
the  electorate  by  precincts  and  by  race.  This  material 
is  available  only  in  commonwealths  that  have  not  dis- 
franchised the  negro.'  The  writer  feels,  from  the  efforts 
he  has  already  made  to  collect  this  statistical  material, 
that  it  would  require  the  authority  of  a  government 
investigator  and  a  considerable  expenditure  of  money  to 
complete  the  task.  It  was  fortunate  for  our  purpose 
that  the  Baltimore  Sun  had  published  since  1884  in  its 
Annual  Almanac  the  registration  by  precincts  and  the 
precinct  vote  of  the  Maryland  local-option  elections. 

On  Plate  No.  5  the  counties  of  Maryland  are  num- 
bered. In  the  Appendix  to  this  chapter  are  tabulated 
the  election  statistics  of  the  counties  in  which  in  certain 

1  See  Table  I,  items  nos.  24  and  25. 


precincts  the  negro  vote  was  sufficiently  heavy  to  admit 
of  analysis.  We  may  now  enter  upon  an  investigation 
of  the  influence  that  the  negro  has  exerted  in  the  elec- 
tions-on-license  in  this  commonwealth. 

Allegany  County  (18) 

Allegany  County  had  in  1880,  1890,  and  1900  a  popu- 
lation with  a  negro  density  of  4.  On  November  21, 
1880,  the  county  voted  to  retain  license  (3626  to  2539). 
In  no  precinct  did  the  number  of  registered  voters  ex- 
ceed fifteen  per  cent  of  the  number  of  white  voters. 
The  county  has  never  been  no-license. 

Anne  Arundel  County  (15)* 
In  the  election  of  December  5,  1882,  in  Ward  No.  3  of 
Annapolis,  the  only  precinct  in  which  it  is  possible  to 
apply  our  test,  the  negroes  voted  for  no-license.  In  that 
same  precinct  in  the  next  election,  which  was  held  on 
April  26,  1886,  the  negroes  reversed  their  vote  and 
carried  the  precinct  for  license.' 

Baltimore  County  (22) 
The  local  -  prohibition  -  through  -  special  -  legislation 
method  has  been  used  extensively  throughout  the 
county,  including  parts  of  the  city  of  Baltimore.  The 
county  has  never  voted  on  license.  The  density  of  the 
negro  population  has  never  exceeded  19. 

Calvert  County  (12)* 
The  county  local-option  election  of  November  5,  1876, 
was  carried  for  no-license  with  the  aid  of  the  negro  vote. 
The  density  of  the  negro  population  was  118.  The 
county  had  remained  no-license  twenty-four  years,  when 
saloons  were  established  in  one  town.  The  county  is 
still  license. 

Caroline  County  (5) 
In  the  precinct  local-option  election  of  July,  1874,  the 
county  voted  no-license.  This  'was  the  only  election 
ever  held  in  the  county,  and  the  county  has  since  re- 
mained no-license.  In  1870  the  density  of  the  negro 
population  was  45;  in  1880,  43.  The  election  was  held 
too  early  to  admit  of  analysis.  Four  precincts  voted  for 
no-license.  License  was  given  a  majority  of  9  in  the 
Fourth  Precinct. 

1  The  Baltimore  Sun  Almanac  gives  the  registration  by  counties  for 
1882  and  1883.  It  will  not  be  possible,  therefore,  to  make  an  accurate 
analysis  of  the  vote  in  the  elections  held  prior  to  1884.  These  statistics 
show  that,  while  the  registration  was  far  behind  the  voting  possibilities 
of  the  commonwealth  as  shown  by  the  United  States  Census  of  1880, 
in  the  increase  of  registration  there  were  very  slight  changes  in  the 
ratio  of  the  negro  voters  to  the  white  voters  in  the  precinct. 

*See  Table  V,  p.  49,  for  the  election  statistics. 


30 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


Carroll  County  (21) 

The  county  local-option  election  of  November  2,  1880, 
was  carried  for  license  by  a  vote  of  3365  to  2788.  In 
that  year  there  were  eight  negroes  to  one  hundred  of 
the  white  population.  In  1884  the  negro  registration 
did  not  equal  in  any  precinct  sixteen  per  cent  of  the 
white  registration.  The  county  has  never  been  no- 
license. 

Cecil  County  (1) 

Cecil  County  had  in  1880,  1890  and  1900  a  population 
with  a  negro  density  ranging  from  18  to  20.  County 
local-option  elections  were  held  in  1880  and  1886,  and 
beginning  with  1890  they  have  been  held  quadrennially. 
The  issue  of  county  prohibition  in  these  elections  re- 
sulted as  follows :  for,  for,  against,  for,  against,  for,  for 
and  for.  In  only  four  precincts  did  the  registration  of 
the  negro  voters  in  any  of  these  elections  equal  thirty 
per  cent  of  the  registration  of  the  white  voters.  The 
First  Precinct,  Ceciltown,  with  a  negro  registration  of 
approximately  sixty  per  cent  for  the  period,  has  cast  its 
vote  for  license  once.  At  this  time  a  light  vote  was 
cast.  In  no  county  election-on-license  was  the  white 
registration  exceeded  by  the  vote. 

Charles  County  (13)* 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Charles  County  has  ranged  from  115  to  145.  The  negro 
registration  generally  equaled  the  white  registration. 
It  is  very  apparent  that  in  every  election  and  in  nearly 
every  precinct  the  county  was  carried  for  license  with 
the  aid  of  the  negro  vote.  The  vote  polled  as  a  rule, 
exceeds  the  white  registration.  In  the  election  of  April 
24,  1906,  when  the  county  was  carried  for  license,  three 
precincts  voted  no-license  by  small  majorities.1  The 
county  has  never  been  no-license. 

Dorchester  County  (18) 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Dorchester  County  has  ranged  from  63  in  1870  to  51  in 
1900.  In  a  precinct  local-option  election  held  in  July, 
1874,  every  precinct  voted  for  no-license.  In  1884  in 
five  precincts  the  negro  registration  ranged  from  96  to 
161  per  cent,  of  the  white  registration.  On  November 
2,  1880,  Drawbridge  Precinct  (registration — white,  123; 
colored,  127)  voted  for  no-license  144  to  38.  On  No- 
vember 4,  1884,  Linkwood  Precinct  (registration — white, 
163;  colored,  130)  voted  for  no-license  173  to  68.  There 
are  no  indications  that  the  negro  favored  license  in  these 
precinct  elections. 

1  In  recent  years  The  Sun  has  discontinued  publishing  in  The  Alma- 
nac the  official  precinct  vote  of  the  elections-on-license. 

*  See  Table  V,  p.  49,  for 


Frederick  County  (20) 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Frederick  County  has  ranged  from  19  to  13.  In  the 
election  of  August  3,  1880,  the  majority  for  license  was 
1436.  The  registration  in  1884  was:  white,  10,016;  col- 
ored, 1668.  The  county  has  never  been  no-license.  The 
local-prohibition-through-special-legislation  method  has 
been  used  extensively  in  this  county. 

Garrett  County  (17) 
The  density  of  the  negro  population  in  Garrett  County 
has  always  been  1.  In  a  precinct  local-option  election 
on  November  4,  1884,  in  which  the  county  voted  for 
license,  1304  to  1130,  five  precincts  were  carried  for  no- 
license.  In  a  later  election  on  April  2y,  1886,  in  which 
a  sixth  precinct  voted  for  no-license  the  county  voted 
for  no-license,  966  to  953.  On  November  4,  1890,  this 
vote  was  reversed  and  the  county  has  since  been  license. 

Harford  County  (23) 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Harford  County  has  ranged  from  26  to  31.  In  the  elec- 
tion of  November  7,  1882,  the  county  voted  for  no- 
license,  2989  to  1803,  and  again  on  November  6,  1888, 
3321  to  2101.  At  this  time,  Havre  de  Grace,  voting  as 
an  independent  unit,  was  carried  for  license.  The  city 
has  since  remained  license.  In  no  election  did  the  total 
vote  cast  exceed  the  registration  of  white  voters,  and  in 
no  precinct  do  the  election  statistics  admit  of  analysis. 

Howard  County  (4)* 

Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Howard  County  has  ranged  from  32  to  37.  In  the 
county  local-option  election  of  December  5,  1882,  every 
precinct  in  the  county  was  carried  for  no-license.  Clark- 
ville  Precinct,  the  only  precinct  in  which  the  vote  cast 
exceeded  the  white  registration,  was  carried  for  no- 
license  with  the  aid  of  the  negro  vote.  Ellicott  City  was 
granted  a  license  law  in  1892,  and  the  county  has  since 
been  license. 


v 


Kent  County  (2)* 
Since  1880  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Kent  County  has  ranged  from  64  to  69.  November  5, 
1878,  the  county  gave  a  majority  of  594  for  no-license 
and  the  status  has  never  been  changed.  In  the  election 
of  May  10,  1890,  the  majority  for  no-license  was  heavy 
enough  to  show  that  the  negro  represented  the  senti- 
ment of  the  county  even  though  the  total  vote  cast  did 
not  equal  the  registration  of  that  year.  In  1896  the 
county  gained  statutory  prohibition, 
the  election  statistics. 


THE  NEGRO  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  THE  PROHIBITORY  MOVEMENT 


31 


Montgomery  County  (16)* 
Since  1880  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Montgomery  County  has  ranged  from  50  to  59.  In  the 
county  local-option  election  of  November  2,  1880,  every 
precinct  voted  against  license.  Since  a  heavy  vote, 
nearly  equaling  the  registration  of  1882,  was  cast,  a  ma- 
jority of  the  negro  votes  was  without  question  cast  for 
no-license.  The  county  has  never  reversed  its  prohibi- 
tion vote  of  1880. 

Prince  George  County  (14)* 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Prince  George  County  has  ranged  from  67  to  89. 
County  local-option  elections  were  held  in  1880,  1884 
and  1908.  These  elections  resulted  as  follows :  No- 
license,  license  and  license.  Four  precincts  had  a  ma- 
jority of  negro  voters  in  1884.  Two  of  these  precincts, 
Marlboro  and  Queen  Anne,  have  been  carried  consist- 
ently for  license.  Nottingham  and  Brandywine  voted  : 
no-license,  license,  no-license. 

Queen  Anne  County  (3)* 

Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Queen  Anne  County  ranged  from  53  to  68.  Precinct 
local-option  elections  were  held  in  1874,  1878,  and  1882. 
Although  the  number  of  registered  negro  voters  ranged 
from  40  to  80  per  cent  of  the  white  registered  voters  in 
the  different  precincts  in  1884,  the  vote  cast  in  the  license 
elections  was  too  light  to  admit  of  analysis.  In  a  local- 
option  election  in  1895  the  only  license  precinct  was 
carried  for  no-license.  The  county  has  since  remained 
no-license. 

Somerset  County  (9) 

Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  of 
Somerset  County  has  ranged  from  58  to  67.  Precinct 
local-option  elections  were  held  in  1874,  1876,  1882  and 
1884.  In  Dublin  Precinct,  the  precinct  with  the  highest 
negro  registration  (99  in  1884),  the  negroes  have  aided 
in  retaining  the  saloon  in  every  election.  The  three 
other  precincts  of  high  ratios  {73  to  88)  have  been  car- 
ried for  no-license  with  the  aid  of  the  negro  vote.  Since 
1890  the  special-legislation  method  has  been  used  to  gain 
statutory  prohibition  for  the  precincts.  Act  No.  240  of 
1898  extended  the  area  to  the  county.  The  county 
remains  prohibition. 

St.  Mary  County  (10)* 
Since  1880  the  density  of  the  negro  population  of  St. 
Mary  County  has  ranged  from  92  to  105.  In  the  county 
local-option  election  of  August  16,  1884  every  precinct  in 
the  county  was  carried  for  license  with  heavy  majorities. 
In  seven  of  the  eight  precincts  the  vote  cast  exceeded 


the  white  registration,  indicating  that  negroes  voted  for 
license.     This  county  has  never  had  prohibition. 

Talbot  County  (6)* 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Talbot  County  has  ranged  from  57  to  71.  In  the  pre- 
cinct local-option  election  of  1874  one  precinct  voted  for 
license.  This  precinct  retained  the  saloon  in  an  election 
in  1884  with  the  aid  of  the  negro  vote.  In  1902  the 
precinct  was  granted  statutory  prohibition.  A  county- 
prohibition  act  was  passed  in  1906  and  the  county  remains 
prohibition. 

Washington  County  (19) 
Since  1880  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Washington  County  has  not  exceeded  9.  A  precinct 
local-option  election  in  1880  was  carried  for  license  with 
a  majority  of  549.  Six  precincts  voted  no  license. 
County  local-option  elections  were  held  on  the  following 
dates,  with  these  majorities  for  license:  1884,  350:  1886, 
389 :  1909,  1620.    This  county  has  never  had  prohibition. 

Wicomico  County  (17) 
Since  1880  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Wicomico  County  has  ranged  from  34  to  39.  In  the 
local-option  election  of  May  24,  1876  the  county  gave  a 
majority  of  359  for  license.  Later  on  April  26,  1904,  a 
precinct  local-option  election  was  held.  One  of  the  two 
precincts  that  voted  for  license  was  Tyaskin,  the  precinct 
with  the  highest  negro  voting  strength  (77).  Finally 
in  1908  the  county  was  carried  for  no-license. 

Worcester  County  (18) 
Since  1870  the  density  of  the  negro  population  in 
Worcester  County  has  ranged  from  49  to  56.  The  first 
two  county  local-option  elections  were  carried  for  no- 
license,  with  the  following  majorities:  April  21,  1874, 
412;  April  24,  1876,  349.  On  April  3,  1883,  local- 
option  elections  were  held  in  six  of  the  nine  precincts  in 
the  county.  In  terms  of  the  negro  registration,  the 
precincts  voted  as  follows :  60,  50,  and  20,  license ;  75, 
60,  and  15,  no-license.  In  the  county  local-option 
election  of  March  21,  1908,  every  precinct  in  the  county 
was  carried  for  no-license,  the  vote  being  2905  to  847. 

In  arranging  the  twenty-three  counties  in  the  order  of 
the  number  of  "  colored  males  of  voting  age  "  per  hun- 
dred of  "  white  males  of  voting  age  "  in  1900  and  mak- 
ing four  groups  of  counties,  we  find  that  the  negro 
densities  in  Maryland  do  not  approach  those  of  several 
counties  of  Arkansas,  for  the  range  of  the  first  group  of 
five  counties  is  I  to  II ;  of  the  succeeding  groups  of  six 


*  See  Table  V,  p.  49,  for  the  election  statistics. 


32 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


counties  each,  the  second,  19  to  35,  the  third,  41  to  53, 
the  last  group,  59  to  106.  The  counties  never  adopting 
prohibition,  or  if  adopted,  never  retained  longer  than 
ten  years,  are  distributed  as  follows :  the  permanently 
license,  all  but  one  of  the  first  group,  one  in  each  of  the 
second  and  third  groups  and  two  in  the  last  group. 
Four  of  these  counties  contain  all  but  two  of  the  cities 
of  over  five  thousand  inhabitants  in  the  commonwealth. 
The  short-period  prohibition  counties  are  distributed  as 
follows :  four  years,  the  fifth  county  of  the  first  group, 
one  in  the  second  group  and  two  in  the  last  group;  six 
years,  one  in  the  second  group ;  ten  years,  one  in  each 
of  the  second  and  third  groups.  Annapolis  is  located  in 
a  four-year-prohibition  county. 

The  counties  retaining  prohibition  from  the  time  of 
its  first  adoption  are  distributed  as  follows  :  one  of  the 
counties  of  the  second  group  has  had  prohibition  con- 
tinuously for  thirty-eight  years,  while  the  other  county 
has  been  a  prohibition  county  for  sixteen  years,  eight 
years  of  which  comprise  the  present  period.  The  no- 
license  periods  of  the  four  counties  of  the  third  group 
are  continuous  periods  of  thirteen,  fourteen,  sixteen  and 
seventeen  years  respectively.  In  the  last  group  one  of 
the  counties  has  been  prohibition  continuously  for  thirty- 
four  years,  while  the  other  had  been  prohibition  for 
twenty-four  years  before  the  adoption  of  the  license 
policy  twelve  years  ago. 

In  this  analysis,  then,  we  see  that  the  correlation  of 
license  with  populations  of  high  negro  density  appears 
in  six  of  the  seven  counties  with  the  highest  negro 
density.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  that  of  the  nine 
counties  of  the  lowest  negro  density,  eight  have  either 
always  been  license  or  have  not  retained  no-license  longer 
than  six  years.  The  large  cities  are  located  in  these 
counties. 

The  analysis  of  the  precinct  vote  cast  in  the  elections- 
on-license  led  us  to  make  two  classes  of  precincts,  those 
of  high  negro  voting-strength  in  which  the  vote  cast  did 
not  exceed  the  white  registration,  thus  preventing  a  test 
of  the  negro  vote,  and  those  precincts  in  which  condi- 
tions were  favorable  for  such  a  test.  Summarizing  the 
elections  carried  first  for  license  and  next  for  no-license, 
in  the  first  group,  we  find  the  results  by  counties  as 
follows  :  Cecil,  1  and  8 ;  Prince  George,  8  and  4 ;  Wicom- 
ico, 1  and  o;  total,  10  and  12.  Summarizing  the  pre- 
cincts in  which  the  negro  vote  positively  functioned  in 
the  result,  we  find :  Anne  Arundel,  1  and  1 ;  Dorchester, 

0  and  2 ;  Howard,  o  and  1 ;  Somerset,  4  and  4 ;  Talbot, 

1  and  o;  total,  6  for  license  to  8  for  no-license.  The 
negro  vote  has  aided  in  retaining  license  in  elections  in 


Charles  and  Montgomery  Counties,  while  it  aided  in 
carrying  the  election  for  no-license  in  Calvert  County 
and  possibly  Dorchester  and  Kent  Counties,  though 
in  these  instances  the  vote  did  not  admit  of  analysis. 

A  conclusion  drawn  from  the  analysis  of  the  material 
presented  in  this  third  part  of  our  investigation  estab- 
lishes the  fact  that  the  negro  is  not  always  in  favor  of 
the  license  policy.  The  negro  electorate  usually  votes 
as  does  the  white  electorate  in  the  same  precinct.  The 
analysis  shows  that  the  negro  has  the  no-license  support 
in  his  favor. 

CONCLUSION 

We  have  now  definite  conclusions  to  the  problem  we 
set  out  to  examine  in  this  chapter.  The  first  part  of  the 
investigation  was  a  general  study  of  the  whole  field. 
The  other  two  parts  have  tested  further  the  general  con- 
clusion reached  in  the  first  part  of  the  analysis  and  were 
inquiries  into  the  propensities  of  the  negro  electorate  in 
the  elections-on-license  since  the  general  proposition  was 
shown  to  be  invalid. 

We  conclude,  accordingly,  that,  contrary  to  general 
assertion  and  its  general  acceptance, 

(1)  the  negro  has  been  an  inconsiderable  factor  in  the 
prohibitory  movement  of  the  South,  because  the  saloon 
has  been  abolished  and  retained  in  the  communities  of 
the  South  without  apparent  reference  to  the  presence  of 
the  negro; 

(2)  as  a  voter  the  negro  has  exerted  an  influence 
hindering  the  movement  of  no  greater  weight  than  that 
exerted  by  the  white  voter ; 

(3)  the  greatest  hindrance  to  the  prohibition  move- 
ment has  been  exerted  by  the  lower  levels  of  both  races.1 

The  conclusions  of  this  chapter  have  been  expressed 
in  general  form,  while  the  material  upon  which  the  in- 
vestigation into  the  influence  that  the  negro  has  exerted 
as  a  voter  has  been  drawn  from  only  two  commonwealths 
and  those  located  on  the  northern  boundary  of  our  field. 
This  has  not  been  done  in  the  ignorance  of  the  rather 
narrow  statistical  basis  upon  which  the  second  proposi- 
tion rests.  The  writer  ventures  the  general  proposition 
from  an  extended  survey  of  elections-on-license  in  nearly 
every  commonwealth.  This  material  is  too  far  from 
complete  to  be  presented  at  this  time. 


1  Cf.  John  E.  White,  "Prohibition,"  in  South  Atlantic  Quarterly, 
vol.  vii,  no.  2  (April,  1908),  p.  137.  There  was  a  sense  of  satisfaction  in 
finding  that  a  close  student  of  the  problem  from  a  direct  contact  with 
the  field  had  reached  essentially  the  same  conclusion  that  had  been 
gained  as  an  inductive  inference  from  data  drawn  from  statute  laws, 
official  state  reports  and  election  statistics. 


CHAPTER  VI 


Conclusion 


In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  been  concerned 
with  the  presentation  and  explanation  of  the  data  upon 
which  the  solution  of  the  problem  before  us  rests.  No 
attempt  has  been  made  to  indicate  except  in  a  cursory 
manner  the  practical  bearing  of  the  results  that  were 
there  established.  Certain  important  conclusions  may 
now  be  presented  as  to  the  sources  of  the  prohibitory 
movement  in  the  South,  the  methods  employed  and  the 
results.  It  will  be  apparent  to  the  reader  who  has 
scrutinized  the  material  presented  on  the  maps  and 
charts  and  in  the  tables  that  conclusions  of  this  nature 
may  be  drawn  from  the  evidence  there  set  forth. 

The  prohibitory  movement  in  the  South  is  a  response 
to  a  fundamental  social  impulse ;  its  origin  was  too  early, 
its  response  too  basic  and  unconscious  for  any  other  in- 
terpretation. There  was  discovered  no  foundation  for 
the  premise  that  the  movement  could  be  interpreted  as 
the  effort  of  the  white  group  in  a  community  of  diverse 
racial  elements  to  again  limit  the  province  of  the  activity 
of  the  members  of  the  negro  group  in  reference  to  the 
use  of  intoxicating  liquors  to  the  point  that  existed  be- 
fore emancipation.  It  has  been  rather  the  effort  of  the 
whole  community  to  rid  itself  of  the  public  retail  liquor 
store.  This  shop,  whether  a  saloon  or  a  dispensary  and 
whether  under  private  or  public  administration,  had  be- 
come a  depressing  social  influence  no  longer  to  be 
countenanced  by  public  opinion.  In  this  connection  we 
have  observed,  moreover,  that  the  purpose  of  the  legis- 
lation involving  the  prohibition  of  the  manufacture  and 
the  sale  has  not  been  to  stop  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquors.  The  liquor  store  and  not  the  use  of  intoxicating 
liquor  has  been  directly  involved.  The  same  cause  in 
the  South,  then,  as  in  the  North  has  promoted  no-license 
legislation. 

Wherein  may  we  find  the  reason  for  the  marked  dis- 
parity until  within  eight  years  in  the  extent  of  the  pro- 
hibition territory  in  these  two  sections  of  the  United 
States?"  It  is  primarily  the  difference  in  method — the 
method  used  in  the  administration  of  liquor  laws.  It 
may  be  true  that  the  policy  of  the  South  in  liquor 
legislation  was,  to  have  no  distinctive  policy,  except  that 


1  See  the  writer's   map    in    Anti-Saloon    League    Year  Book  tor 
1909. 


of  legislating  specially  for  different  localities," '  but  the 
method  of  local-prohibition-through-special-legislation 
is  the  important  fact  to  be  discovered  about  the  growth 
of  no-license  territory  in  the  South.  This  system  which 
has  so  largely  prevailed  in  the  South  secures  preemin- 
ently the  nice  adjustment  of  law  to  public  sentiment  and 
has  thus  been  most  successful  in  its  operation.  As 
methods  insuring  efficiency  in  the  administration  of 
liquor  laws  there  is  a  marked  contrast  between  special 
legislation  and  local  option,  the  method  that  has  in  the 
North  dominated  the  legislation,  except  in  the  case  of 
the  commonwealth  and  has  also  been  widely  used  for 
nearly  forty  years  in  the  South. 

The  effect  of  public  sentiment  upon  the  efficiency  of 
local  administration  may  be  represented,  as  Mr.  Sites 
declares,  in  the  form  of  a  ratio,3  thus : 

,       .....        .       „~-  .  Local  Sentiment 

Local  Admm.strat.ve  Effic.ency  -  Otfslatiw  RequirelSEt 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  that  special  legislation  is  en- 
acted only  after  the  intensity  of  local  sentiment  has  been 
accurately  tested.  Under  the  method  of  local- prohibi- 
tion-through-special legislation,  legislative  requirement 
will  never  quantitatively  exceed  local  sentiment.  The 
special  laws  were  not  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the 
electorate  before  enactment,  excepting  of  course  the 
optional  form  of  special  legislation.  Enactment  was  not 
possible,  therefore,  in  the  face  of  the  disapproval  of  nearly 
a  majority  of  the  electorate.  As  has  already  been  shown 
the  pressure  of  local  sentiment  was  carefully  measured  in 
the  halls  of  the  legislature.  The  Representative  carefully 
determined  that  the  legislative  requirements  of  his  con- 
stituents' petition  when  enacted  into  law  should  not  ap- 
proach, much  less  exceed,  local  sentiment.  Since  the 
conditions  of  our  ratio  in  this  way  have  been  met,  we 
have  an  ideal  condition  for  local  administrative  effi- 
ciency. 

By  this  means  of  approach  the  community  has  col- 
lectively solved  the  problem  for  itself.  In  the  accurate 
measurement  of  local  sentiment,  then,  rather  than  in  the 
reliance  upon  the  legislative  requirement,  was  found  the 

'Sites,  Ibid.,  p.  106. 
*Ibid.,  p.  96. 

33 


34 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


logical  solution  of  the  problem  of  repressing  the  sale  of 
liquor.  In  this  we  find  the  first  distinct  advantage  of 
the  local-prohibition-through-special-legislation  method 
over  local  option. 

The  most  obvious  objection  to  the  measuring  of  ad- 
ministrative efficiency  through  legislative  enactment, 
namely,  that  the  enactment  of  a  law  does  not  necessarily 
mean  enforcement,  has  been  fully  met.  And  moreover, 
the  general  assumption  may  be  made  that,  "  when  the 
community  .  .  .  feels  strongly  enough  upon  any  given 
subject  to  express  its  will  in  statute  law,  it  can  and  does 
in  a  large  measure  enforce  its  decree  in  extra-legal 
ways,  even  when  the  statute  itself  is  enforced  but  im- 
perfectly." ' 

On  the  other  hand,  the  process  of  gaining  prohibition 
through  local-option  elections  may  mean  that  the  legis- 
lation has  been  accomplished  under  conditions  which 
are  liable  to  defeat  a  thorough-going  enforcement  of  the 
law.  These  conditions  are  of  a  local  nature.  In  the 
first  place,  as  the  area  widens,  different  grades  of  senti- 
ment appear  within  the  area.  The  "  local "  of  the 
numerator  of  our  fraction  (local  sentiment)  is  constantly 
in  danger  of  being  exceeded  by  the  "  local "  of  the  de- 
nominator of  the  fraction  (legislative  requirement).  In 
the  second  place,  legislative  requirement  being  nominally 
the  expression  of  the  average  political  and  moral  sense 
of  the  body  politic,  it  may  frequently  happen,  also,  that 
local  sentiment  may  not  yet  have  reached  the  standard 
of  the  legal  norm.  These  conditions  do  not  pertain 
to  local-prohibition-through-special-legislation. 

Local -prohibition -through -special -legislation  in  its 
second  advantage  over  local  option  is  concerned  with 
minimum  areas.  As  the  probabilities  are  that  local  senti- 
ment is  in  advance  of  the  legal  norm  in  the  local-prohi- 
bition-through-special-legislation method,  so  the  possi- 
bility is  greater  that  the  legal  norm  will  be  in  advance 
of  local  sentiment  in  the  local-option  method,  and  that 
is  especially  true  as  the  administrative  unit  increases  in 
extent.  Yet  this  possibility  does  not  necessitate  that 
local  option  will  always  create  a  marked  disparity  in  the 
value  of  the  terms  of  our  fraction.  Complete  and  gen- 
eral prohibition  is  the  only  condition  in  which  local 
sentiment  cannot  possibly  exceed  the  requirements  of 
the  law.  High  administrative  efficiency  in  prohibitory 
enforcement  is  brought  about  through  a  slow  process  of 
evolution.  The  standard  of  local  sentiment  may  be 
raised  by  a  similar  slow  process  of  education  in  which 
the  legislative  requirement  has  its  part. 

The  formula  changes  as  the  area  is  enlarged  and  the 

1  F.  H.  Giddings,  "Measurement  of  Social  Pressure,"  in  Publications 
of  the  American  Statistical  Association,  March,   1908,  p.  59. 


local-option  method  is  adopted.  Central  control  is 
introduced  as  an  element  in  local  administration.  We 
have,  then: 

General  Sentiment 


Centralized  Administrative  Efficiency 


Legislative  Requirement 


Since  administration  must  be  local  in  action,  notwith- 
standing it  is  under  central  authority,  the  actual  in- 
tensity of  general  sentiment  in  a  particular  place  may  be 
diminished  more  or  less  by  the  remoteness.  In  the 
make-up  of  general  sentiment  the  sentiment  of  the  local 
community  thus  has  in  practice  a  disproportionate  effect. 
If,  therefore,  general  sentiment  be  not  strong  and  pro- 
nounced in  favor  of  the  enforcement  of  laws  as  laid  down 
by  the  legislature,  centralized  administration  is  likely  to 
weaken  and  fail  in  the  face  of  an  aggressive  local  opposi- 
tion. So  long  as  general  sentiment,  which  normally  is 
on  a  par  with  legislative  requirement,  is  intense  enough 
to  carry  the  administration  against  the  force  of  local 
sentiment,  the  conditions  are  favorable  for  the  efficiency 
of  central  administrative  control.3  This  is  the  problem 
whenever  a  county  votes  no-license  against  the  wish  of 
a  number  of  local  communities.  It  would  have  been 
interesting  to  measure,  had  the  data  been  available,  the 
exact  extent  to  which  the  sentiment  of  the  township 
welcomed  the  extension  of  the  area  of  legislative  require- 
ment to  the  county.3  Over  a  wide  area  in  a  number 
of  the  prohibition  commonwealths,  the  general  county 
sentiment  was  pronounced  enough  to  gain  a  statutory 
enactment  for  county  prohibition.4  These  counties  were 
not  susceptible  to  the  changes  in  status  through  which 
the  local-option  counties  had  to  pass  before  they  actually 
accepted  prohibition  as  a  fixed  policy.5 

The  problem  of  a  strong  general  sentiment  adequate 
for  the  enforcement  of  prohibitory  law  is  vastly  more 
serious  when  the  commonwealth  adopts  prohibition  be- 
fore the  sentiment  of  nearly  every  county  within  its 
borders  is  prepared  for  the  larger  legislative  requirement. 
The  fact  is  that  the  southern  prohibition  commonwealths 
had  progressed  far  in  establishing  conformity  in  county 

1  Sites,  ibid.,  p.  98. 

8  In  the  prosecution  of  this  study  the  official  precinct  votes  of  county 
local  option  elections  have  been  collected  from  all  parts  of  the  country. 
The  significant  fact  appears  from  an  analysis  of  these  precinct  votes, 
that  the  county  local-option  elections  in  which  every  precinct  cast  a 
majority  vote  for  no-license  are  peculiar  to  the  South,  and  are  there 
relatively  frequent. 

♦Thirty  counties  in  North  Carolina  and  thirty-nine  in  Georgia  had 
gained  prohibition  through  statutory  enactments  before  the  opening  of 
state  prohibition.  In  Georgia  twenty-two  counties  had  accomplished 
this  by  means  of  a  high-license  law. 

8  These  changes  in  status  were  pronounced  in  Arkansas  in  the  elec- 
tions held  under  the  biennial  county  local-option  law.     See  Plate  No.  6. 


CONCLUSION  35 

sentiment  before  they  extended  the  field  of  legislative  ished  with  the  liquor  traffic  in  the  passing  of  the  state 

requirements  to  the  state.     Legislation  enacted  for  the  prohibitory  law.     The  open  saloon,  the  chief  objective 

minimum  area  and  only  after  an  accurate  test   of  the  factor  in  liquor  legislation  until  now,  has  been  displaced 

sentiment  of  the  electorate  upon  the  proposed  measure,  and  this  has  far  exceeded  half  the  battle  for  the  repres- 

is    the    advantage    of    local-prohibition-through-special-  sion  of  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors.     Prohibition  in 

legislation  method  of  liquor  legislation.     In  this  manner,  the  literal  sense  has  not  been  attained.     Whether  in  the 

southern  commonwealths  had  gained  an  experience  with  abolition  of  the  saloon,  the  battle  has  been  won  for  the 

the   enforcement  of   liquor   laws   that    proved   valuable  present  so  far  as  state  legislation  is  concerned,  as  we  are 

training  where  the  community  later  gained  enactments  inclined  to  believe  it  has,  or  whether  the  personal  use  of 

under  general  local-option  laws.  liquor  will    soon    be    involved,   cannot    be  determined. 

The  southern  prohibition  commonwealth  has  not  fin-  Congress  may  yet  more  clearly  define  the  twilight-zone. 


TABLES 

AND 

ILLUSTRATIONS 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 


39 


TABLE  I 
The  Progress  of  Liquor  Legislation  in  Southern  Commonwealths 


Item  of  Legislation. 


1.  First  license  tax 
enacted. 

(1) 

2.  First  no-license  area 
enactment. 

The  area  in  miles 
radius. 


Town  and  county. 


3.  First  optional  no- 
license  enactment. 

4.  Majority  township 
petition  required. 


5.  First  township  local- 
option  election  law 
granted  for  special 
districts. 

6.  General  township 
local-option  law. 

(>3) 

7.  First  county  granted 
prohibition. 


8.  General  county  local- 
option  law. 


.  State-wide  submis- 
sion elections  held. 


3 


No.  1  of 
1803 
(a) 

No.  11  of 
1835 

3 
Town 


La 

Grange, 
Franklin 


No.  205 
of  1852 

No.  37  of 
1881 
(S) 


No.  204 
of  1875 
(II) 


No.  173 

of  1880 
Crenshaw 


No.  149 
of  1907 

No.  168 
of  191 1 


Nov.  29, 
1909 
(22) 


See 
Louisi- 
ana 

No.  101 
of  1856 

3 

Academy 


Falcon, 
Nevada 


1828 
(3) 

No.  22  of 
1839 

1 

Academy 


Misso- 
sukee 
Lake, 
Leon 


No.  31  of 
1856 

No.  125 
of  1855 


No.  37  of 
1874 
(•4) 

No.  373 
of  1909 

Wash- 
ington 


No.  67  ofj 

1881 

(18) 


■a 
c 
o 

E 


f 

o 

3 


1757 


183S 
(4) 

,  iK 
Univer- 
sity 


Ogle- 
thorpe, 
Macon 


No.  120 
of  1793 


No.  84  of  No.  286 
1846    of  1850 


No.  1155  No.  157 
of  1861  of  1859 


No.  3416 
of  1883 


No.  37  of 
1881 
(6) 


1859 
(12) 


1886 
(19) 


Nov.  8, 


1910 
(22) 


1 
Town 


La 
Grange, 
Oldham 


No.  I  S3 
of  1848 


No.  356 
of  1875 
('5) 


No.  182 
of  1885 


U 


No.  9  of 
1805 


No.  117 
of  1828 


Academy 


Pleasant 

Hill, 
De  Soto 


No.  18  of  No.  45  of  No.  14  of,No.  4014 
1842    1848    1838    of  1850 


b 

i 


a. 
o. 


U 

■a 

e 

o 
SB 


I 

No.  95  of  No.  501 
1818     I    of  1798 


£ 


No.  1762 

of  1 801 


I 

Alms 
House 


Annapo- 
lis, 
Anne 
Arundel 

No.  172 
of  1847 


No.  363 
of  1834 


No.  117    No.  105 
of  1874I    of  1852 


No.  1 20 1 
of  1867 
Hart 


No.  119 
of  1835 


S 

State 
Univer- 
sity 

Univer- 
sity, La 
Fayette 


No.  167 
of  1839 

No.  42  of 

1854 
(7),  (8), 
(9).  (10) 

No.  213 
of  1837 


No.  89  of 
1892 
(20) 
1912 


No.  105 
of  1852 
(21) 
No.  76  of 
1884 


No.  163 
of  1874 
(16) 


College 


Wake 
Forest, 
Wake 


No.  246 
of  1859 


No.  61  of 

J873 

Oktib- 
beha 


No.  14  of 
1886 


No.  311 
of  1851 


No.  138 
of  1874 


No.  205 
of  1875 

North- 
ampton 


No.  262 
of  1881 


Aug.  4, 
1881 

May  26, 
1908 
(23) 


2 

College 


Erskine, 
Abbeville 


No.  80  of 
1831 


No.  33  of 
1865 


3  Acade- 
mies 


Henry 
and  Mar- 
shall 


No.  632 
of  1882 


No.  121 

and  No 

223  of 

1883 

Oconee 

and  Barn 

well 


No.  147 
of  1836 


No.  352 
of  1905 
Tipton 


Sept.  30, 
1887 
(22) 


No.  1  of 

1840 


No.  38  of  No.  195 
1844        of  1878 


H 

Univer- 
sity 


Mill 

Creek, 
Austin, 

Travis 

No.  95  of 
1858 


No.  88  of 
1854 


No.  33  of 
1876 


No.  33  of 
1876 


Aug.  4, 
1887 
(22) 

July  22, 
1911 
(22) 


3 

Town 


Blacks- 
burg, 

Mont- 
gomery 


« 
'3 

t 


See  Vir- 
ginia 


No.  49  of 
1872 


County 


Hancock 


No.  379  :No.  16  of 
of  1872   1867 


No.  248 
of  1886 


No.  307 
of  1902 
(17) 


No.  49  of 

1872 
Hancock 


Nov.  6, 
1888 
(22) 

Nov.  s, 
1912 
(24) 


Notes:  Items  1  to  9 


( 1 )  For  sale  by  retail,  for  "  on  "  or  "  off  "  consumption,  and  in  excess 
over  its  share  as  a  part  of  a  general  system  of  business  licenses. 
As  a  rule  the  southern  commonwealth  imposes  an  elaborate  sys- 
tem of  business  taxes. 

The  acts  are  given  by  chapters. 

Act  of  November  21 ,  1828. 

Act  of  December  21,  1835. 

Granted  to  eleven  counties;   not  a  general  act. 

Granted  particular  counties;  not  a  general  act. 

Act  of  March  8,  1852,  granted  to  special  districts. 

Petition  to  be  open  for  one  month  for  the  reception  of  counter- 
petitions,  and  names  found  on  both  petitions  to  be  considered  as 
against  the  granting  of  the  license.     §  10. 

Act  No.  24  of  1874  extended  the  right  of  petition  to  female  citi- 
zens over  18  years  of  age. 

(10)  Act  No.  81  of  1876  repealed  Act  No.  24  of  1874. 

(11)  Granted  to  two  counties.    Act  No.  203  of  1876  adds  three  more 

counties. 

(12)  Two  acts  for  localities  in  two  counties. 


(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
(8) 


(9) 


(13) 

(14) 
(15) 


(16) 
(17) 

(18) 
(19) 

(20) 
(21) 
(22) 
(23) 
(24) 


"  Local  Option  "  as  here  used  merely  implies  the  right  of  popular 

vote.    It  does  not  imply  an  actual  exercise  of  the  right. 
Annual,  and  hence  an  actual  exercise  of  the  right. 

(a)  Local-Option  Elections  for  either  town,  city  or  county;  four- 

teen counties. 

(b)  Act  No.  371  of  1876  grants  prohibition  to  two  counties  through 

a  high-license  law.  This  method  was  used  quite  generally 
in  Georgia. 

County  local-option  election  granted  Worcester  County.  The 
election  carried  for  "  no- license,"  on  April  21,  1874. 

Prohibition  granted  to  Buchanan,  Dickinson,  Giles  and  Tazewell 
counties. 

Biennial,  and  hence  an  actual  exercise  of  the  right. 

The  referendum  election  on  incorporating  the  clause  in  the  con- 
stitution was  carried  for  the  amendment. 

Repealed  by  Act  No.  52  of  1894  ;  §  7. 

Repealed  by  Act  No.  221  of  1854. 

The  State  voted  on  Constitutional  Prohibition. 

The  only  election  in  the  South  carried  for  state-wide  prohibition. 

To  be  submitted  at  next  general  election. 


40 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 

TABLE  I— {Continued) 
The  Progress  of  Liquor  Legislation  in  Southern  Commonwealths 


Item  of  Legislation. 


10.  Prohibition  except 
incorporated  cities, 
towns  and  villages. 


1 1 .  Date  of  the  opening 
of  the  state  prohi- 
bition regime. 


12.  "  Scientific  temper- 
ance education  " 
legislation. 

(6) 

13.  First  dispensary. 


14.  Special  dispensary 
local-option  law. 


15.  General  dispensary 
county  local-option 
law. 


16.  "Blind  tiger" 
enactment. 

(IS) (16) 

17.  Place  of  delivery 
made  place  of  sale. 

(18) 

18.  Possession  of  liquor 
prohibited . 

(19) 

19.  Internal  Revenue 
license  prima  facie 
evidence. 

(20) 

20.  Soliciting  orders 
prohibited. 

(21) 

21.  C.  O.  D.  shipments 
prohibited. 

(24) 

22.  Memorial  to  Con- 
gress asking  protec- 
tion for  no-license 
areas. 

23.  Sale  to  negro  with- 
out consent  of  master 
prohibited. 

24.  Suffrage  amend- 
ments enacted. 

25.  Registration  of 
voters  required. 

(28) 


Jan.  1, 
1909 
(4) 


No.  150 
of  1891 


No.  63  of 
1898 
(7) 

No.  550 
of  1899 
(12) 

No.  316 
of  1907 

No.  168 
of  191 1 

No.  56 
of  1883 


No.  405 
of  1907 
("7) 

No.  289 
of  1887 


No.  277 
of  1895 


i  5o87 
Code  of 
1896 


< 


•c 


No.  459  No.  4683 

of  1907  of  1899 

(0 


No.  3  of 
1809 


1901 


No.  17  of 
1875 
§9 


No.  53   No.  26 
of  1899  of  1889 
§  20 


No.  122 
of  1883 
§' 

No.  53 
of  1891 
§1 


No.  122 
of  1883 
§2 


No.  75 

of  1901 

(22) 

No.  53 
of  1891 
§1 

1889 

(25) 
1901 


See 
Louisi 
ana 


Nos.  46 
and  122 
of  1895 


No.  37 
of  1897 


No.  48 
of  1 901 
§5 

No.  46 
of  1901 


No.  49 
of  1 901 


No.  83 
of  1903 


182S 
(27) 


No.  33 
of  1889 
§7 


o 


No.  28t 
of  1891 


1733 

(S) 
Jan.  1, 
1908 

No.  367 
of  1901 


No.  395 
of  1891 
(8) 

No.  376 
of  1906 
(13) 


No.  292 
of  1899 


No.  41 
of  1895 
(17) 


No.  287 
of  1893 


Ut 


No.  260 
of  1893 
§63 


No.  21 
of  1894 


No.  63 
of  1906 
§4 


.2 


No.  40 
of  1888 


No.  495 
of  1886 


Jan.  1, 
1909 


No.  106 
of  1896 
§7 


1755 


1908 


No.  118 
of  1894 
§3 


No.  81 
of  1904 
(»7) 


No.  14   No.  40   No.  421 
of  1902  of  1908  of  1896 
§2  (17J 


No.  60 
of  1894 


1902 


No.  510 
of  1834 


No.  65 
of  1892 
(29) 


(■7) 

No.  10 
of  1806 

No.  323 
of  1832 

1898 

.  .  .  . 

No.  98 
of  1908 
§4 

No.  22 
of  1882 
§7 

o 


No.  233 
of  1903 


Jan.  1, 
1909 


No.  957 
of  1907 


3 


No.  374 
of  1880 

(2) 


No.  477 
of  1908 


No.  23 

and  No 

31  of 

1877 

(3) 

July  I, 
1909 


No.  180 
of  1895 


No.  331  No.  28 
of  1895  of  1892 
(9)     (10) 


No.  233 
of  1903 


No.  313 
of  1893 
('4) 

No.  226 
of  1907 
(13) 


No.  117 
of  1906 


No.  263  No.  313 
of  1899  of  1893 
(17)    §22 


No.  71 
of  1908 
§4 


No.  12   No.  61 
of  1908  of  1896 

(17)   I  §25 


No.  116  No.  339  No.  28 
of  1908  of  1905  of  1892 
§5     §'6 


No.  62 
of  1890 

No.  116 
of  1906 


1904 
1908 


No.  20 
of  1839 

1890 


No.  68 
of  1892 
§8 


No.  118  |No.  313 
of  1908  of  1893 
§41 


1907 


1798 


1900 


No.  89 
of  1901 

§•2 


I9II 


No.  670 
of  1740 


1895 


No.  355 
of  1903 


No.  122 
of  1893 
§65 


No.  90 
of  1887 


No.  90 
of  1887 


No.  178  |No.  96 


of  1909 


1909 


of  1901 


No.  96 
of  190] 


1905 


No.  135  No.  780 
of  1813  of  1840 


> 


No.  189 
of  1908 
§8 


a 

•a 
■a 


No.  132  No.  3  of 
of  1900   1887 


No.  113 
of  1901 
(ID 


No.  510 
of  1892 
(17) 

No.  190 
of  19:0 
§32 

No.  189 
of  1908 

§21 

No.  236 
of  1906 


No.  190 
of  1910 
§33 


No.  120 
of  184! 


1901 


No.  46 
of  1870 
§3 


No.  36 
of  1905 
§32 


No.  36 
of  1905 

§31 

No.  36 
of  1905 
§31 


No.  68 
of  1909 

(23)§87a 

No.  40 
of  1903 


1908 
(26) 


See  Vir- 
ginia. 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 
TABLE  I— {Continued) 


41 


Notes  :  Items  10 

(1)  A  majority  petition  of  men  and  women  "within  three  miles  of  any 

school-house,  academy,  college,  university,  or  other  institution 
of  learning,  or  any  church  house,"  except  in  cities  of  the  first 
and  second  class  with  police  protection,  might  gain  prohibition 
for  that  area.    Act  No.  74  of  1881. 

(2)  Act  No.  471  of  1878  prohibited  the  sale  of  liquor  within  one  mile  of      (20) 

any  church,  school-house,  college  or  university  not  in  an  incor- 
porated town,  village  or  city. 

(3)  Act  No.  23  prohibited  the  sale  of  liquor  within  four  miles  of  any 

incorporated  institution  of  learning  not  in  an  incorporated  town; 
Act  No.   31,   within  five    miles   of   any  furnace,   rolling  mill, 
foundry  or   factory   actually   working;  Act   No.    112  of   1871,      (21) 
within  six  miles  of  any  iron  manufactory  not  in  an  incorporated 
town. 

(4)  Repealed  by  Act  No.  259  of  1911. 

(5)  Repealed  in  1744. 

(6)  Either  making  the  study  of  physiology,  which  shall  include  with      (22) 

other  hygiene,  the  nature  and  effects  of  alcoholic  drinks  and 
other  narcotics  upon  the  human  system,  mandatory  in  public 
schools;  or  requiring  the  teacher  to  pass  a  satisfactory  examina- 
tion in  the  subject. 

(7)  For  Clayton,  Barbour  County. 

(8)  For  Athens,  Clarke  County.  (23) 

(9)  For  Waynesville,  Haywood  County. 

(10)  To  be  established  in  license  counties.  (24) 

(11)  For  Farmville,  Prince  Edward  County. 

(12)  For  license  counties. 

(13)  For  dispensary  counties. 

(14)  For  no-license  counties. 

(15)  Example:  A  "blind  tiger,"  within  the  meaning  of  this  article,  is 

any  place  in  which  intoxicating  liquors  are  sold  by  any  device 
whereby  the  party  selling  or  delivering  the  same  is  concealed      (25) 
from  the  person   buying   or  to  whom    the  same  is  delivered. 
Texas,  Act  No.  90  of  1887. 

(16)  Purchasing    liquor  in  prohibition  areas   has  been   prohibited   in 

Arkansas  (Act  No.  199  of  1899)  and  Tennessee  (Act  No.  422  of 
1005). 

(17)  Not  a  general  act.    The  policy  of  special  local  legislation  has  been 

followed  in  several  commonwealths.  (26) 

(18)  Example:  That  the  place  where  the  delivery  of  any   .   .  .   liquor      (27) 

is  made  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  shall  be  construed  and      (28) 
held  to  be  the  place  of  sale  thereof,  etc.     Act  No.  440  of  1905.  (29) 

(19)  Example:   Possession  prohibited;  Provided,  however,  That  this 


to  25 

law  shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  apply  to  persons  keeping  a 
reasonable  amount  of  spirituous  liquors  in  his  private  residence 
for  private  use.  Florida,  Act  No.  48  of  1901;  §  2.  This  amount 
ranges  from  one-half  gallon  to  two  and  one-half  gallons  in  the 
different  commonwealths. 

Example :  The  possession  of  a  United  States  special  tax  stamp 
(commonly  called  United  States  license)  for  carrying  on  the 
business  of  a  retail  dealer  in  spirituous,  vinous  or  malt  liquors, 
or  the  having  of  such  tax  stamp  stuck  up  at  the  place  of  business 
in  such  (prohibition)  territory  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  of 
guilt  under  this  section.    Kentucky,  Act  No.  14  of  1902;  §  2. 

Example:  Any  person  who,  within  the  limits  of  any  district  in 
which  the  sale  of  .  .  .  liquors  is  prohibited  by  law,  solicits  or 
receives  any  order  for  .  .  .  liquors  in  any  quantity  to  be  shipped 
or  sent  into  such  district  must,  on  conviction,  etc.  Alabama, 
Code  of  1896;  §  5087. 

Example  :  Any  person  who  receives  an  order  from  another  for 
intoxicating  liquors  in  prohibition  territory  and  transmits  the 
same  in  person,  by  letter,  telegraph  or  telephone,  or  in  any 
other  manner  .  .  .  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  violating  this  act, 
etc.  Arkansas,  Act  No.  135  of  1907;  §§  2  and  3.  Similar  acts 
have  been  passed  for  counties  in  Alabama. 

On  every  license  to  solicit  or  receive  orders  ...  for  .  .  liquors, 
a  state  tax  of  $100. 

Example:  All  the  shipments  of  .  .  .  liquors,  to  be  paid  for  on 
delivery,  commonly  called  C.  O.  D.  shipments,  into  any  county, 
city,  town,  district  or  precinct  where  this  act  is  in  force  shall  be 
unlawful  and  shall  be  deemed  sales  of  such  liquors  at  the  place 
where  the  money  is  paid  or  the  goods  delivered;  the  carrier  and 
his  agents  selling  or  delivering  such  goods  shall  be  liable  jointly 
with  the  vendor  thereof.     Kentucky,  Act  No.  14  of  1902;  §  4. 

Senate  Concurrent  Resolution:  That  our  Senators  and  our  Repre- 
sentatives be  requested  to  use  their  best  efforts  to  secure  the 
passage  by  Congress  of  a  bill  whereby  the  revenue  laws  of  the 
United  States  shall  be  so  amended  as  to  prohibit  the  granting  of 
licenses  for  the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  in  any  county,  dis- 
trict or  locality  where  the  sale  thereof  is  now  or  may  hereafter 
be  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  this  State,  passed  January  28,  1889. 

Oklahoma,  No.  8  of  191 1. 

Act  of  January  21,  1828. 

Registration  of  voters  by  race  and  precinct  required. 

Article  IV,  ?  4,  for  cities  and  towns  of  the  first,  second,  third 
and  fourth  classes. 


42 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 
TABLE  II 


EXAMPLES  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  LIQUOR  LEGISLATION  FOR  FOUR  COUNTIES 

ALABAMA 


Jefferson  County1 


Date  of 
the  Act. 

Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 

12-16-1851 

2 

1-23-1860 

2 

2-21-1860 

2 

12-  9-1861 

2 

12-13-1870 

1 

2-  9-1871 

3-  2-1871 

2 

12-  7-1871 

2 

3-  7-i873 

2 

3-14-1873 

*K 

4-19-1873 

3 

12-11-1873 

3 

12-17-1873 

2K 

12-17-1874 

3 

3-  7-1876 

2>£ 

2-28-1881 

3 

3-  1-1881 

3 

3-  1-1881 

2^ 

3-  1-1881 

3 

3 

3 

4-  1-1881 

3 

2-20-1883 

3 

3 

3 

2-23-1883 

3 

3 

12-11-1884 

3 

2-17-1885 

.... 

5 

3 

2-10-1887 

1 

12-12-1888 

S 

2-16-1889 

.... 

2-28-1889' 


12-13-1900 
2-28-1901 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Ely  ton;  later  name  changed  to  Birmingham. 

Prohibition  for  Elyton  repealed 

Salem  Church,  Turkey  Creek 

Bethel  Church 

Central  Baptist  Church 

City  Council  given  option,  Elyton.     §  16. . . 

Taylor's  Chapel 

Irondale  Furnace 

Any  coaling  grounds  in  Bibb,  Jefferson  and 
Tuscaloosa  Counties,  except  incorporated 
towns.  (The  two  adjacent  counties  to  the 
southwest  are  Tuscaloosa  and  Bibb) 

Red  Mountain  Iron  and  Coal  Co.'s  furnaces. 

Pleasant  Hill  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  . . 

Enon  Presbyterian  Church 

New  Castle  Coal  Mines  

Old  Jonesboro  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Prohibition  repealed  for  New  Castle  Coal 
Mines 

Walker's  New  Macedonia  Church 

Arnold's  Chapel 

Alice  Furnace 

Trussville; 

Richaina  Church; 

Crumley's  Chapel 

Pratt  Mines  School  House 

Any  coaling  ground,  coal  mine,  ore  mine, 
factory,  furnace  or  rolling  mill  in  Beats 
Nos.  1,  2  and  3; 

Hillman's  Mines,  Beat  9; 

Woodward's  Mines,  Bethlehem  Beat 

Wesley  Chapel  School  House,  Brock's  Gap; 

Toad  Vine 

The  general  section  of  Act  No.  245  of  1883 
was  amended  to  include  Beat  No.  17 

Beat  No.  12; 

Coalburg  Mine; 

Mines  of  Bibb  Coal  Co.,  except  within  in- 
corporated towns 

Avondale  Springs,  except  Birmingham 

Williamsburg  Baptist  Church 

Prohibition  for  Jefferson  County,  except  in- 
corporated towns 

Warrior  Beat,  No.  17; 

Farewell  Baptist,  Laodicea  and  Hopewell 
Churches; 

Union  Grove  School  House; 

Togsell  Mines; 

Moins  High  School 1 

Charter  of  West  End.     §  24 

Charter  of  Sandusky.     §  20   


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 
219 
419 
418 
161 
'55 
'35 
164 
220 


'53 

170 

'57 
53 
5° 

233 

218 
120 

"9 
121 


122 
293 


245 
282 
126 


325 
286 
207 

275 


5°4 
225 
638 


Date  of 
the  Act. 


3- 
3- 
3- 
2- 

3- 
10- 


2-1901 
2-1901 
5-1901 
6-1903 

3- '9°3 
1-1903 

3-  4-1907 
8-  6-1907 


Area  in 

Miles 
Radius. 


m 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Owenton  College 

Hardee  Chapel 

Dispensary  for  Ensley 

License  granted  Sec.  1 7,  twp.  1 7,  s.,  Range  5  w 

Dispensary  for  Warrior 

Dispensary  for  Morris 

Precinct  17,  Warrior  Beat 

Dolcito  Church,  Precinct  11 


Number. 
805 
868 

"iS 

83 
180 

497 
262 

598 


Density  of  the  Negro  Population.  In  1850  the  number  of  negroes  to  one  hun- 
dred of  the  white  population  was  34;  in  i860,  29;  in  1870,  25;  in  1880,  28;  in 
1890,  57,  and  in  1900,  68. 

'This  county  is  numbered  "  1 "  on  the  map  of  Plate  No.  5. 

Lowndes  County* 


Date  of 
the  Act. 


2-1 7- 1 854 
2-17-1854 
1-27-1872 

2-24-1872 
12-13-1873 


12-17-1873 

12-17-1874 
3-15-1875 

3-15-1875 
2-26-1881 
2-28-1881 

3-  1-1881 
2-10-1887 

2-26-1903 


Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 


'M 

2 

4 

'M 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2 

3 
5 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Sandy  Ridge  Academy 

Lowndesboro  Institute 

Hopewell    Baptist    Church    and    Magnolia 
Academy 

Sandy  Ridge  Academy 

Lctohatchie  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 
Tabernacle  Methodist  Episcopal  Church; 
Steep  Creek  Baptist  Church ; 
Pleasant  Valley  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Hopewell  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and 

Academy 

Ash  Creek  Methodist  and  Baptist  Churches. 
Hopewell    Baptist    Church    and    Magnolia 

Academy,  near  Mt.  Willing 

Bethany  Baptist  Church  and  Academy 

Local  Option  except  in  towns  and  cities 
Haynesville  Church; 

Benton  and  Fort  Deposit  Churches 

Farmersville  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  . .. 
Prohibition  for  Lowndes  County,  amending 

Act  No.  192  of  1881    

Dispensary  for  Fort  Deposit,  Beat  No.  10. .. 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 
418 
436 

184 
176 


44 

43 
245 

244 
243 
192 

120 
121 


285 
60 


Density  of  the  Negro  Population.  In  1850  the  number  of  negroes  to  one  hun- 
dred of  the  white  population  was  202;  in  1860,231;  in  1870, 406;  in  1880, 452; 
in  1890,  591,  and  in  1900,  649. 

For  a  general  statement  of  the  social  conditions  in  this  county  under  prohibi- 
tion, see  Economic  Aspects  of  the  Liquor  Problem,  chap,  vi,  pp.  160-164  (Bos- 
ton, 1899). 

aThis  county  is  numbered  "2"  on  the  map  of  Plate  No.  5. 


NORTH  CAROLINA 


Gaston  County' 


Date  of 
the  Act 


2-28-1873 

4-  3- '873 
2-16-1879 
3-13-1879 


Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 


2 

'M 
'^ 

2 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Stanley  Creek  Camp  Ground  during  time  of 

meeting 

Mountain  Island  Factory 

Lowell.     §  10  

Fellowship  Church; 

Bethseda;   Lineberger's;   Wilson's;    Shiloh; 

Dallas;    Kelley's;    Concord;    Friendship; 

Antioch,  and  Lander's  Churches 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Date  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 

46 

171 

62 


232 


2-19-16 
3-12-1S 


2-21-1883 
3-12-1883 
2-25-1885 


Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Local  Option  election  granted  Cherry ville. .. 
Springfield  Church;   Dallas  Academy; 
Christ  and  Stanly  Creek  Churches; 
Cartenea  Grove;    Mt.  Zion;    Mountain  Isea 

Factory,  and  Union  Presbyterian  Churches; 
Mt.  Holly  Academy;    River   Bend   School 

House 

Philadelphia  Church  in  South  Point  Township 

Shady  Grove  Church 

Dallas  High  School.     §  9 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 
26 


234 
43 
166 

38 


'This  county  is  numbered  "  1 "  on  the  map  of  Plate  No.  5. 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 
TABLE  II— (Continued) 


43 


Date  of 
the  Act. 


3-11-1885 


3-  7-1887 


3-  9-1889 
3-11-1889 
3-1 I-I 889 
3-11-1889 

3-  3"l89i 
3-  3-1891 
3-  7-1891 
3-  9-1 891 

2 
1 
1 

3 
2 

2 

2-  9-1893 
3-13-1895 

3 

2 
1 

3-  9-1897 

1 

2 

3-  9-1897 

2 

2-28-1899 
3-  6-1899 

3-  8-1899 


3-11-1901 


3-  3-'9°3 
3-  4-' 905 
1-28-1908 


Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Goshen;  Ebenezer;  Pisgah;  New  Hope;  Mc- 
Addinsville;  Bethel;  Smyrna;  Mt.  Olivet; 
Modely;  Cross  Roads;  Trinity,  and  Olney 
Churches;  School  House  in  District  47. . . 

New  Providence  School  House  in  River  Bend 
Township 

Lowell.     §  8  

Mount  Tabor  and  Long  Creek  Churches  .... 

Cherry  ville.     §  8 

Mount  Holly.     §  6 

Prohibition  for  Gaston  County 

Mountain  Island.     §  6 

Belmont  Academy 

South  Point  and  Snow  Hill  Churches; 

Mt.  Zion  Church 

Prohibition  for  Gaston  County  repealed  .... 

South  Point  Church; 

Stanly  Creek  Church;  Mt.  Zion  and  Mediary 
Churches  in  Point  Township; 

Craig's  School  House 

Cherryville  and  St.  John's  Ev.  Lutheran 
Churches 

Hepliziba;  Lutheran  Chapel;  Union  Chow- 
der's; Mountain;  Clover  Garden;  Orange; 
Antioch;  Bessemer  City,  and  Hickory 
Grove  Churches; 

Bennington;  Stanly  Creek;  Christ,  and 
Springfield  Churches 

Gastonia.     §  69 

Alexis.     §  6 

Mount  Hope  Church  in  South  Point  Town- 
ship and  Melian's  Church  and  School 
House  (No.  1 1 )  in  District  4   

School  Houses :  Nos.  7,  8  and  9  in  Cherryville 
Township;  No.  11  (Providence)  in  River 
Bend  Township;  No.  17  in  Gastonia  Town- 
ship; 

Kellison's;    Snow   Hill,   and    Gastonea 
Churches; 

Hardin  Cotton  Mills  and  High  Shoals  Mfg. 
Co.'s  Mills  in  Dallas  Township 

Prohibition  for  Gaston  County 

The  place  of  delivery  made  the  place  of  sale. 

Keeping  of  liquor  prohibited 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 


179 

209 
166 
362 
214 
222 
222 
162 
296 

327 
101 


426 
411 


395 
148 
251 


696 


554 

349 

440 

12 


Density  of  the  Negro  Population.  In  1850  the  number  of  negroes  to  one  hun- 
dred of  the  white  population  was  40;  in  i860,  37;  in  1870,  35;  in  1880,  36;  in 
'890,  33,  and  in  1900,  49. 

The  area  of  Gaston  County  is  359  square  miles. 

The  total  area  granted  prohibition  through  special  legislation,  excepting  the 
county  act,  was  1655  square  miles. 

Votes  on  State  Prohibition.  August  4,  188 1 :  For,  946;  against,  11 74.  May 
26,1908:  For,  2058;   against,  643. 

Robeson  County1 


Date  of 
the  Act. 


1 -2 7- 1 849 
1-28-1851 
12-24-1852 
2-22- 1 86 1 
3-25-1870 
2-  8-1872 
4-  3-I873 


Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 


3 
3 
3 
2 

3 

4 
3 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Floral  College  

Antioch  Academy , 

Robeson  Institute  and  Red  Springs  Academy. 

Spring  Hill  Academy 

Ashpole  Church 

St.  Paul's  Presbyterian  and  Ashpole  Churches. 

Ashpole  Baptist  Church; 

Big  Branch;  Beauty  Spot;  Ashpole  Presby- 
terian; Mt.  Moriah  Baptist;  Ashbury,  and 
Horeb  Churches; 

Lumberbridge  and  Providence  Churches; 

Lumberton ; 

Union  Chapel  Methodist  Episcopal  Church . . 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 
185 
258 
179 
203 
80 
128 


Date  of 
the  Act. 


2-16-1874 
2-1 6- 1 874 


3-  2-1875 
3-22-1875 
3-12-1877 


3-11-1881 


1-23-1883 

3-  6-1883 
3-  7-1883 
3- 1 2- 1 883 
3-12-1883 


3-11-1885 
3-  7-'887 
3-  7-1887 
1-25-1889 
2-10-1891 
2-27-1891 
3-  3-1891 
3-  9-1891 


3-  6-1893 

3-  6-1893 

3-  3-1897 
2-27-1899 
2-28-1899 
3-  4-1899 
3-  6-1899 
3-  8-1899 

2-  8-1901 
2-23-1901 
2-27-1901 

3-  9-1 901 


3-11-1901 


1-24-1903 

3-  9-i9"3 
3-  4-1905 


Area  in 

Miles 

Radius. 


1 
3 
3 
4 
3 
3 

*% 
2 

5 


The  Center  of  the  Area. 


Prohibition  for  Lumberton  repealed 

Bethany   Presbyterian;    Ten    Mile    Swamp 

Baptist,  and  Montpelier  Churches; 
Back  Swamp  Baptist,  and  Claiborne  Baptist 

Churches; 

Raft  Swamp  Baptist  Church 

Ashpole  Baptist  Church 

Philadelphia  Church 

Pleasant  Grove  Church; 

Ionia; 

Lebanon   Presbyterian   Church   and   Union 

Chapel; 
New  Hope  Church; 

Providence  Church 

Ashpole  Institute  and  Church;  Spring  Hill; 

Jackson  Swamp;    Mt.  Zion;   Shoe   Heel; 

Center;    Mt.   Moriah,   and  Zion   Hill 

Churches; 
White    Pond;    Pleasant    Hill;    Asbury; 

Smith's;  Barker's;  Salem;  Red  Bank,  and 

Reagan's  Churches; 
New  Hope  Academy  (No.  80) ; 
Bethany;  Panther  Ford,  and  Shady  Grove 

Churches 

Bethany  Presbyterian  Church  repealed; 

Shady  Grove  Church  repealed 

License  for  Lumberton.     §  46  

Local  Option  Election  for  Shoe  Heel 

Shoe  Heel  Church  repealed 

Long  Branch  Church; 

Centre;   Mt.  Olivet,  and  Bethesda  Churches; 

Parker's  Grove  School  House 

Red  Springs  Church 

Lumberbridge  Church 

Red  Springs 

Lumberton  (including  sale  by  druggists) 

Maxton.     §  13 

Lumberton 

Lumberbridge.     §  6 

Bloomingdale;    Back  Swamp;   White  Pond, 

and  Hoy  Swamp  Churches; 
Magnolia;    Saddle  Tree;    Ten   Mile;    Raft 

Swamp;     Mt.    Elim;     Barker's;     Regan; 

Bethesda;     Maxton;     Big    Branch,    and 

Long  Branch  Churches 

Aberdeen  and  Edenboro  School  Houses; 

Olive  and  Barker's  Churches 

Prohibition  for  Robeson  County 

Lumberton.     §  11 

Union  City.     §  II 

Red  Springs.     §  44 

I .umlici ton.     §  44    

Maxton 

Hillside  Church; 

Montpelier  Church 

Ashpole  Church 

East  Lumberton   

Parkton 

Bethany;   Smith's;    Ashpole;    Big  Branch; 

Long  Branch;    Antioch,  and    Hillside 

Churches 

Hillside;    Bethany;    Smith's  Chapel;    Ash- 
pole;   Big   Branch;     Long   Branch,   and 

Antioch  Churches 

Act  No.  475  of  1893  amended,  making  the 

place  of  delivery  the  place  of  sale 

Oak  Grove  Church  

The  place  of  delivery  made  the  place  of  sale. 


Chapter  of 
the  Act. 


Number. 
'37 


137 
32 

239 


260 


234 

22 

89 
109 
166 


116 

179 
209 
129 
160 
42 
131 
151 


327 

298 

475 
88 
112 
155 
215 
331 

696 
82 

139 

165 


476 


554 

27 
216 

440 


17. 


Density  of  the  Negro  Population.  In  1850  the  number  of  negroes  to  one  hun- 
dred of  the  white  population  was  77;  in  i860,  81;  in  1870,  82;  in  1880,  100;  in 
1890,  88,  and  in  1900,  86. 

The  area  of  Robeson  County  is  1043  square  miles. 

The  total  area  granted  prohibition  through  special  legislation,  excepting  the 
county  acts,  was  2500!  square  miles. 

Votes  on  State  Prohibition.  August  4,  1881 :  For,  1203;  against,  2591.  May 
26,1908:  For,  2275;  against,  347. 

JThis  county  is  numbered  "2"  on  the  map  of  Plate  No.  5. 


t=:G— : 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  NO-LICENSE  ARKA  in  SOU' 


L 


[O]  area  of  2  mile  radius. 
Q    ....  3    ,.  .. 

Q     ....  4    ..  .. 


DENSITY  OF  NEGRO  POPULAT 
Each  dot  shows  a  negro  populat 
of  the  white  population. 

example: 

Bowie  County,  Texas,  in  the  northes 
has  110  negroes  to  100  whites. 

The  absence  of  a  dot  indicates  a  negro 
100  of  the  white  population. 


ERN  COMMONWEALTHS  ON  JANUARY  1,  1868. 


PLATE  No.  X  . ;  . 


•I(     IN  1860. 

tio  squal  to  10  per  cent 


a;  orner  of  the  state, 


o  J  ilation  of  less  than  5  to 


NO-LICENSE  AREAS. 
Counties. 

Double  Boundary. 
Minor  Areas. 

Scale  :  if  mm.  for  every  mile  in  radius. 
The  smallest  circle  is  one  mile  in  radius. 


_; ; 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  NO-LICENSE  AREA  IN  SO  H 


DENSITY  OF  NEGRO  POPULATJ 
Each  dot  shows  a  negro  populati 
of  the  white  population. 

example: 

Bowie  County,  Texas,  in  the  northea 
has  65  negroes  to  100  whites. 

The  absence  of  a  dot  indicates  a  negro 
100  of  the  white  population. 


HERN  COMMONWEALTHS  ON  JANUARY  1,  1877. 


PLATE  No.  2. 


IN  1880. 
otimalto  10  per  cent 


jrner  of  the  state, 


p )  ation  of  less  than  5  to 


NO-LICENSE  AREAS. 
Counties. 

Double  Boundary. 
Minor  Areas. 

Scale  :  H  mm.  for  every  mile  in  radius. 
The  smallest  circle  is  one  mile  in  radius. 


DISTRIBUTION  OF  NO-LICENSE  AREA  IN  SOU 


ERN  COMMONWEALTHS  ON  JANUARY  1,  1887. 


PLATE  No. ■■J'; 


Kl. 

al  10  per  cent 


f  the  state, 


less  than  5  to 


NO-LICENSE  AREAS. 
Counties. 

Double  Boundary. 
Minor  Area*. 

Scale  :  £f  mm.  for  every  mile  in  radius. 
The  smallest  circle  is  one  mile  in  radius. 


■DISTRIBUTION  OF  NO-LICENSE 


|0|  area  of  2  mile  radius. 

O     "      "   3     "  " 

Q     ....   4     ..  .. 


JUST  PRIOR  TO  OPENING  OF 
Alabama  Georgia 


APRIL  1,  1< 

Arkansas  Florida  K« 

Maryland  South  Carol 

West  Virginia      Texa 


PLATE  No.  *. 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 


45 


DISTRIBUTION  OP  DISPENSARY  COUNTIES  IN  SOUTHERN  COMMONWEALTHS. PLATE  No.  S. 


4g  THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 

TABLE  III 
The  Net  Monthly  Profits  of  the  South  Carolina  Dispensary 

County  and  Number  of        Total  Monthly 

The  Tillman-rraxler  Administration.                     Commonwealth.           Municipality.  Total.  Dispensaries.  Profits. 

For  19  months  ending  January  31,  1895 $110,348.80                   $14,979.60  $125,328.40  69  $6,596.22 

The  Evans-Mixson  Administration. 

For  11  nrmths  ending  December  31,  1895 *■•              133.467-77                   106,131.28  239,599.05  84  21,781.73 

For    3  months  ending  March  31,  1896 74,375-03  88  24,791.67 

Administration  of  the  Board  of  Control. 

For    9  months  ending  December  31,  1836 280,829.91  90  31,203.32 

For  12  months  ending  December  31.  1897 146.443.09                         323,863.98  ••  26.988.89 

For  12  months  ending  December  31.  1838 156.839.61                     91.716.45  248. 525.06  93  20.710.50 

For  12  months  ending  December  31,  1899 193,689.49                   220,492.35  414,181.84  n6§  34,515-50 

Administration  of  the  Board  of  Directors. 

For  11  months  ending  November  30,  1900 176,012.18*                 298.166.28  474.178.46  118  43,107.13 

For  12  months  ending  November  30,  1901 120.962.25                   424,285.87  545,2^8.12  128  45-437-34 

For  12  months  ending  November  30,  1902 123.699.57                   443,198.76  566.898.33  138  47.241.52 

For  12  months  ending  November  30,  1903 126,266.00                   512,216.35  638,482.35  138  53,206.86 

For  12  months  ending  November  30,  1904 171. 377-73                   603,998.22  775,375-95  146  64,614.06 

For  12  months  ending  November  30    1905 870.318.07  145  72,526.50 

For  12  months  ending  November  30,  1906 23,883.14                   552,092.80  575.975-94  122  47,997.99 

For    3  months  ending  February  28,  1907 ..  

The  County  Dispensary  System. 

For  10      months  ending  December  31,  1507 695,056.61  100  69,505.00 

For  12      months  ending  December  31,  1908 934600.90  90  77,883.41 

For  11^  months  ending  December  31.  igogt 878,619.65  39  76.401.70 

For  12      months  ending  December  31,  1910 652.248.59  40  54,354-05 

For  12      months  ending  December  31,  191 1 687,477.72  40  57,289.81 

Counties.                Municipalities.  Bar-rooms. 

For  12  months  ending  December  31,  1892 81,100.00                   134,372.00  215,472.00  \  613  1,795.60 

*The  profits  to  the  commonwealth  were  hereafter  devoted  to  the  public  schools. 

tThe  dispensaries  were  closed  for  two  weeks  prior  to  the  election  of  August  17,  1909. 

J  The  profits  to  the  municipalities  probably  exceeded  this  amount  slightly.     Message  of  Governor  Tillman,  Nov.  22,  1892,  Senate  Journals 
1892,  p.  2b. 

§  During  1837  and  1898  owing  to  the  adverse  decisions  of  the  courts  the  State  Board  of  Control  took  advantage  of  an  "  implied  right  "  in  Sec- 
tion 4  of  the  Dispensary  Law  of  1897  and  established  beer  dispensaries  to  contest  the  field  of  the  illegitimate  traffic  in  "  original  packages." 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 
TABLE  IV 

The  Record  of  the  Biennial  County  Vote  on  License  in  Arkansas 
i.    summary  of  elections 


47 


Number  of  counties. 

Times  voted. 

Number  of  elections. 

72 

IS 

1080 

2 

U 

28 

1 

13 

13 

Total,  75 

1121 

2.      SUMMARY  OF   LICENSE   CHANGES 


Num 

>er  of  changes. 

All  counties 

Majority  negro  counties.1 

Majority  white  counties. 

Negro  counties." 

White  counties.3 

0 

14 

5 

9 

5 

1 

10 

1 

9 

2 

6 

2 

4 

3 

21 

3 

18 

1 

4 

4 

3 

1 

2 

5 

14 

3 

II 

2 

6 

3 

1 

2 

7 

4 

4 

• 

1 

Total    .    .    . 

75 

16 

59 

6 

7 

CUMULATIVE   FREQUENCY   TABLE 


CUMULATIVE   PERCENTAGE  TABLE* 


Number 

of 
changes. 

All 
counties. 

Majority1 

negro 
counties. 

Majority 

white 
counties. 

Negro* 
counties. 

White' 
counties. 

1 

61 

11 

5° 

7 

2 

51 

10 

41 

7 

3 

45 

8 

37 

7 

4 

24 

5 

19 

3 

5 
6 

21 

7 

4 
I 

17 
t       6 

3 

1 

7 

4 

4 

1 

Number 

of 
changes. 

All 
counties. 

Majority ' 

negro 
counties. 

Majority 

white 
counties. 

Negro  * 
counties. 

White  • 
counties. 

1 

100  0 

100. 0 

100  0 

100  0 

100.0 

2 

8^.6 

91.0 

82  0 

1 00.0 

1   0.0 

3 

73-8 

72.8 

74.0 

100.0 

100. 0 

4 

39-3 

45-4 

380 

0.0 

429 

5 

34  4 

36-4 

34-0 

0.0 

42  9 

6 

11. 5 

9i 

12  0 

0.0 

14-3 

7 

6-5 

0.0 

8.0 

0.0 

14-3 

'There  were  in  1900  sixteen  counties  with  a  majority  of  negro  voters. 

"There  were  in  1900  six  counties  with  more  than  250  negro  vters  per  hundred  of  white  voters. 

'There  were  in  1900  seven  counties  with  less  than  a  two-tenths  per  cent  negro  voting  p  lpulation. 

'The  graphs  showing  the  results  of  the  biennial  elections  in  the  different  groups  of  counties  are  given  in  Figures  1,  2  and  3  on  Plate  No.  6. 


48 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


PLATE  No.  6. 


Counties: 
All 

Majority  Negro 

Majority  White  «  —  o 

Negro 

White  o o 


m     ' 

~s 

1 

"1       6 

^ 

n^ 

as      ° 

*-^~,J 

C 

-__ 

£      «; 

-  o 

— . 

U 

o> 

■% 

J 

«       1 

\\ 

N. 

•M       * 

■i 

o 

1  . 

| 

*o^ 

<*. 

~  -- 

fa   - 

9 

s      ' 

y 

i 

/ 

/ 

<U 

/ 

1 

1 

|j 

/ 

' 

, 

/ 

i 

•"^ 

1 

\ 

/ 

O  _ 

i 

? 

• 

1 

' 

1 

o 

/, 

'A 

\ 

i 

.. 

/  / 

\ 

\ 

/< 

/  / 

/ 

\ 

II 

3 

.'  1 

/ 

/ 

K\ 

/ 

I    ' 

1 

o 

// 

f 

s 

1 

1 

\ 

y- 

/ 

0 

\ 

V 

2 

\ 

/* 

I 

\ 

i 

I 

\ 

A 

\ 

rr 

o 

/ 

■ 

/ 

\ 

o 

\ 

1 

\ 

\ 

w 

' 

\ 

s 

/ 

v 

A 

-) 

\ 

\ 

/ 

x 

S 

1 

/ 

/ 

A 

V 

V 

■> 

/ 

< 

Vy 

>' 

\ 

/ 

') 

—4- 

X 

/ 

~-A 

L°' 

*<r 

\ 

\/ 

f. 

\ 

O 

V 

— /- 

v 

/ 

A/ 

// 

V 

a 

•~C, 

?=*■ 

-E^ 

\- 

/v 

i 

A 

End 

MS 

* 

A 

tl 

7/ 

*t 

± 

■f 

-^ 

a   ^o 

/ 

. 

^5 

oS 

\ 

J<- 

: 

/ 

\ 

N 

8  w 

*t 

1   t 

u 

'•\' 

V 

1  * 

.-" 

\ 

/v 

I 

6 

-  +. 

X 

V 

1 

The  percentage  of  the  counties  of  each  group. 

Fig.  1.     The  reversals  in  the  vote  on  license. 

Counties: 
661  

442 

397  o_o 

354 

327    <y o 

250   +  


/Bee        /sef         /ess        /ees        ieso        '89£        tes*         te&e        /ass         /aoo        /soa        /9o+        /9oe       /&oe       /s/o 

Fig.  2.     Record  of  the  vote  on  license  in  the  six  negro  counties. 


COUNTIES 
2 

2  o  — o 

3    

6   + + 

10    o o 

ll+_  + 


Fig.  3.     Record  of  the  vote  on  license  in  the  seven  white  counties. 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 

TABLE  V 

ELECTION  STATISTICS  FOR  TEN  MARYLAND  COUNTIES 

Anne  Arundel  County  (15) '  Howard  County  (4) 


49 


Election 
12-5-1882. 

Registration 
/or  1884. 

Election 
4-28-1886. 

Registration 
for  1886. 

District. 

Li- 
cense. 

No-Li- 
cense. 

White. 

Col- 
ored. 

Li- 
cense. 

No-Li- 
cense. 

White. 

Col- 
ored. 

249 
126 
231 
253 
274 

'73 
5° 

"3 
118 
107 
212 

198 
125 

335 
208 
258 
87 
'37 

333 

241 

315 

279 

425 

400 
459 
583 
279 
176 

441 

371 
196 
460 

475 

421 
448 
213 

.6. 
170 

IOI 

355 
452 

.... 

•,6; 
.... 

295 
241 
289 
.... 

126 

146 
119 
127 

320 

441 

38i 
190 

132 

177 

98 

339 

4.  Lowman 

5-a.  Brooklyn  .... 

6.  Annapolis 

Ward  3 

1906 

2516 

3790 

2914       986 

518 

1332 

746 

Registration,  1882.     White,  3061 ;  Colored,  2656. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  3618;  Colored,  2768. 

Calvert  County  (12) 


Election  11— 5-1876. 

Registration  for  1884. 

District. 

License. 

No- License. 

White. 

Colored. 

216 

139 
287 

232 

401 
364 

156 
288 

365 
382 

«3' 

354 
297 

330 

642 

997 

1191 

ma 

Registration,  1882. 
Registration,  1883. 


White,    922;  Colored,    997. 
White,  1 133;  Colored,  1 107. 


Charles 

County  (13) 

Election 

Election 

Registration 

Election 

Registration 

11-5-1 

876. 

11-2-1880. 

for  1884. 

8-4-1 

i$S- 

for  1885. 

District. 

V 

n 

6 

V) 

a 

n 
B 

a 

B 

O 

13 

m 

V 

B 

D 

3 

6 

V 

0 

m 

a 

B 

0 

a 

V 

■0 

M 

3 

0 

a 

13 

0 

£ 

0 

0 

13 

0 

i 

O 

u 

I.  Port  Tobacco. 

247 

91 

205 

144 

178 

245 

215 

So 

185  246 

2.  Hill  Top.... 

146 

50 

169!     74 

192 

188 

130 

41 

200  171; 

3.  Cross  Roads. 

176 

64 

17°     65 

229!  206 

i8s 

36 

240 

208 

4.  Aliens  Fresh. 

235 

70 

235 

176 

261 

271 

198 

57 

256 

260 

5.  Harris  Lot  .. 

249 

74 

21 

282 

186 

237 

214 

57 

200 

270 

6.  Middletown  . 

255 

99 

273    121 

262 

176 

I6S 

116 

271 

177 

7.  Pamunky  . . . 

122 

54 

I38i     94 

'34 

142 

III 

45 

149 

152 

8.  Bryantown  . . 

211 

150 

309    156 

279 

245 

232 

82 

289 

2-*q 

9.  Patuxent .... 

123 

85 

181 

58 

119 

138 

131 

19 

124 

146 

1764 

737 

1707  1 160 

I 

1840 

1848 

1581 

503 

1914 

"873 

Registration,  1882.     White,  1697;  Colored,  i860. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  1749;  Colored,  1966. 


District. 


Election  1 2-5-1882. 


License. 


1.  Elk  Ridge... 

2.  Ellicott  City. 

3.  Friendship  . . 

4.  Lisbon 

5.  Clarkville  . . . 

6.  Savage 


Total 


l°5 
250 
156 
191 
228 
'59 


No-License. 


236 

274 
199 
262 
254 
223 


Registration  for  1884. 


White. 


382 
526 
394 
543 
393 
454 


Colored. 


138 
210 

*33 
170 
156 
161 


Registration,  1882.     White,  2429;  Colored,  865. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  2645;  Colored,  900. 

Ellicott  City,  Election  11-6-1888.     License,  321;  No-License,  321.     Regis 
ation.     White,  559;  Colored,  172. 


icon  city,  election  n-o-iooi 
tration.     White,  559;  Colored,  172, 

Kent  County  (2) 


District. 

Registration 
for  1884. 

Election  5-10-1890. 

Registration 
for  1890. 

White. 

Colored. 

License. 

No-License. 

White. 

Colored. 

2.  Kennedyville  .. 
4.  Chestertown  . . . 

825 

469 
378 
440 
181 
656 

497 

355 
282 
368 
181 
292 

340 

106 

76 

191 

'35 

250 

'383 
292 

555 
600 

685 

526 

350 
740 
712 

354 

3'5 
245 
455 
3'9 

2949 

'975 

848 

2080 

3013 

1688 

Registration,  1882.     White,  2249;  Colored,  1587. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  2630;  Colored,  1725. 

Montgomery  County  (16) 


District. 


1.  Laytonsville 

2.  Clarksburg  .. 

3.  Poolesville  . . 

4.  Rockville  . . . 

5.  Colesville  . . . 

6.  Darnestown  . 

7.  Bethseda  . . . 

8.  Olney 

9.  Gaithersburg 

10.  Potomac. . . 

11.  Barnesville .. 

12.  Damascus  •  • 

13.  Wheaton  . .. 

Total 


Election  11-2-1880. 


License.       No-License. 


255 
279 
344 
404 
282 
103 
120 
"4 


1901 


261 
463 
512 
544 
608 

275 
234 
534 


Registration  for  1884. 


White. 


287 
34' 
354 
478 

745 
222 

285 
33° 
3'3 
228 
272 
3" 


Colored. 


343' 


4166 


'59 
no 

2S§ 
178 

302 

141 

"5 

379 

83 
142 

43 


2034 


Registration,  1882.     White,  3822;  Colored,  1856. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  4087;  Colored,  1 933. 


1  The  number  of  the  county  indicated  on  Plate  No.  5. 


5° 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 
TABLE  V— {Continued) 


Prince  George  County  (14) ' 


District. 


1.  Vansville 

2.  Bladensburg  . . 

3.  Marlboro 

4.  Nottingham  . . . 

5.  Piscataway 

6.  Spalding 

7.  Queen  Anne  . . 

8.  Aquasco 

9.  Surratts  

10.  Laurel 

11.  Brandy  wine  ... 

1 2.  Oxon 

13.  Kent 

14.  Bowie 

15.  Melwood 


Election 
4-27-1880. 


Li- 
cense. 


45 

471 

"3* 

29* 

184* 

68' 


26* 


No-Li- 
cense. 


Total 


.1 


Registration 
(or  1884. 


White. 


Col- 
ored. 


129 

42* 
148 

69* 


114* 
no* 

179  I 

98* 
90*1 

39*, 


319 
388 

355 
181 
283 
425 
250 
172 
187 

384 
192 
287 
241 
253 


286*  3917 


120 
213 

535 
228 
192 
118 
3>o 
161 
92 

67 
197 
141 

156 
141 


Election 
1 1-4-1884 


Li- 
cense. 


No-Li- 
cense. 


Election 
5-2-1908. 


Li- 
cense. 


160 
2791 

578 

250 

329, 
266! 

259 
107 

«5°j 
«73; 
«97 
i73t 
205 
161 


2671      3287 


194 
221 
184 
114 
57 
139 
238 
167 

97 
214 
106 
146 

74 
171 


No-Li- 
cense. 


10 
152 
188 

94 

102 

112 

171 

42 

27 

61 

91 
103 
121 

148 
161 


1583 


34 

126 

181 

144 

99 

55 

121 

32 

54 

140 

■54 
104 

79 
128 

77 


1528 


*  Majority. 

Registration,  1882.     White,  3054;   Colored,  2287. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  3494;  Colored,  2461. 


3ueen  Anne  County 

(3) 

Election 

7-14-1874. 

Election  n-7-1882. 

Registration 
for  1884. 

District. 

License. 

No-License. 

License. 

No-Licenae. 

White. 

Colored. 

-b.  Sudlersville 

•  •  • 

.... 

525 

212 

2.  Church  Hill  . 

281 

212 

200 

293 

468 

203 

3.  Centerville  .. 

454 

265 

362 

595 

604 

389 

4.  Kent  Island  . 

.... 

.... 

266 

212 

5.  Queenstown  . 

247 

128 

33" 

243 

454 

267 

6.  Ruthsburg. .. 

.... 

.... 

.... 

295 

132 

7.  Crumpton  . . . 



.... 

»5 

293 

324 

133 

Total 

982 

605 

1008 

1424 

2936 

1548 

Registration,  1882.     White,  2658;  Colored,  1472. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  2828;  Colored,  1530. 


St.  Mary  County  (10) 


Election  8-16-1884. 

Registration  for  1884. 

District. 

License. 

No-License. 

1 
White.      '     Colored. 

265                   42 
172                   84 

169 

213 

440 

253 
204 
271 

254 

321 

219 
227 
204 

226 
223 
240 
236 
205 

67 
66 
7i 
34 
76 

6.  Hillville 

205                                   196 

Xotal 

2017 

498 

"947 

1806 

Registration,  1882.     White,  1717;  Colored,  1707. 
Registration,  1883.     White,  1920;   Colored,  1657. 


Talbot  County  (6) 


District. 


Easton 

St.  Michael,  precinct  1  . 
Broad  Creek,  precinct  2 
Royal  Oak,  precinct  3  . . 

Trappe,  precinct  1 

precinct  2  ... . 

Oxford,  precinct  3 

Chapel 

Bay  Hundred,  precinct  1 
Tilghman,  precinct  2  ... 

Total 


Election  7-17-1874. 


License.    No-License. 


273 
98 


"63 

157 
36 


727 


425 
429 


286 

152 
"3 


1405 


Registration 
for  1884. 


White.  \  Colored. 


816 
'34 
333 
116 
144 
506 
253 
47' 
188 

'43 


3104 


458 
130 

•75 
42 
163 
389 
"3 
221 

>°5 
5 

1801 


Registration,  1882.  White,  2693;  Colored,  1612. 
Registration,  1883.  WThite,  2949;  Colored,  1738. 
Chapel,  Election  7-9-1884.     License,  319;  No-License,  203. 


1  The  number  of  the  county  indicated  on  Plate  No.  5. 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 

TABLE  VI 
Legislation  Relating  to  the  Sale  of  Liquor  in  the  South  and  Other  Sources  of  Information 


51 


ALABAMA 


Session  Laws 

Session  of  November  1821 

"  November  1822 

"  November  1823 

"  November  1824 

"  November  1825 

"  November  1826 

"  November  1827 

"  November  1828 

"  November  1829 

"  November  1830 

"  November  1831 

"  November  1832 

"  November  1833 

"  November  1834 

"  November  1835 

"  November  1836 

"  June  12,  1837 

"  November  1837 

"  December  1838 

"  December  1839 

"  November  1840 

"  April  1841 

"  November  1841 

"  December  1842 

"  December  1843 

"  December  1844 

"  December  1845 

"  December  1847 

"  November  1849 

"  November  185 1 

"  November  1853 

"  November  1855 

"  December  1857 

"  November  1859 

"  January  1861 

"  October  28,  1861 

"  October  27,  1862 

"  November  1862 

"  August  17,  1863 

"  November  1863 

"  October  7,  1864 

"  November  2,  1864 

"  November  1865 

"  November  1866 

"  July  13,  1868 

"  September  16,  1868 

"  November  2,  1868 

"  November  1869 

"  November  21,  1870 

"  November  20,  1871 


Session  of  November 

18,  1872 

"        "    November 

17,  1873 

"        "    November 

16,  1874 

"        "    December 

28,  1875 

"        "    November 

1876 

"     November 

1878 

"        "    November 

1880 

"        "    November 

1882 

"        "    November 

1884 

"        "    November 

1886 

"        "    November 

13,  1888 

"        "    November 

11,  1890 

"        "     November 

IS.  1892 

"        "     November 

13,  1894 

"        "    November 

IS,  1898 

"        "    November 

13.  1900 

"        "    January 

13,  1903 

"        "    January 

3,  1905 

"        "    January 

8,  1907 

"    July 

1907 

"        "    July 

27,  1909 

"        "    January 

10,  191 1 

Reports  of  Auditor 

of  State 

Report  for  the  year  ending — 

September 

30,  1884 

September 

30,  1885 

September 

30,  1886 

September 

30,  1887 

September 

30,  1888 

September 

30,  1889 

September 

30,  1890 

September 

30,  1891 

September 

30,  1892 

September 

30,  1893 

September 

30,  1894 

September 

30,  1895 

September 

30,  1896 

September 

30,  1897 

September 

30,  1898 

September 

30,  1899 

September 

30,  1900 

September 

30,  1901 

September 

30,  1902 

September 

30,  1903 

September 

30,  1904 

September 

30,  iox>5 

September 

30,  1006 

September 

30,  1907 

September 

30,  1908 

September 

30,  1909 

Session  Laws 

Session  of 
(i        it 

"    October 


ARKANSAS 

Session  of  October  1823 

1818               "        "    October  3,  1823 

1820  "        "     October  1,  1827 

1821  "        "    October  6,  1828 


Session  of  October  5,  1829 

"  October  3,  1831 

"       "  October  7,  1833 

"        "  October  5,  1835 

"  November  2,  1836 

"        "  November  6,  1837 

"        "  November  5,  1838 

"        "  November  2,  1840 

"        "  November  6,  1842 

"        "  November  4,  1844 

"        "  November  2,  1846 

"        "  November  6,  1848 

"        "  November  4,  1850 

"  November  1,  1852 

"        "  November  6,  1854 

"  November  3,  1856 

"  November  1,  1858 

"  November  5,  i860 

"        "  November  4,  1861 

"  March  17,  1862 

"        "  November  3,  1862 

"  April  11,  1864 

"        "  November  7,  1864 

"        "  November  22,  1864 

"  April  3,  1865 

"        "  November  6,  1866 

"  April  2,  1868 

"  November  17,  1868 

"        "  January  2,  1871 

"  January  6,  1873 

"  May  11,  1874 

"        "  November  10,  1874 

"  November  1,  1875 

"        "  January  8,  1877 

"        "  January  13,  1879 

"  January  10,  1881 

January  8,  1883 

"  January  12,  1885 

"  January  10,  1887 

"  January  13,  1889 

January  12,  1891 


Session  of  January  9,  1893 

"        "  January  14,  1895 

"        "  January  11,  1897 

"        "  January  9,  1899 

"        "  January  14,  1901 

"        "  January  2,  1903 

"  January  9,  1905 

"        "  January  14,  1907 

"        "  January  11,  1909 

"  January  9,  191 1 

Reports  of  Auditor  of  State 
Biennial  Report  for  year  ending — 
September  30,  1880 
September  30,  1882 
September  30,  1884 
September  30,  1886 
September  30,  1888 
September  30,  1890 
September  30,  1894 
September  30,  1896 
September  30,  1898 
September  30,  1902 

Reports  of  Secretary  of  State 
biennial  iRennrt  for  vear  ending — 


n         tt 


tt  it 


Biennial  Report  for  year  e 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 
December  31, 


880 
882 
884 
886 
888 
890 
# 
894 
896 
;8g8 
900 
1902 
904 
:9o6 
:oo8 
910 


FLORIDA 


Session  Laws 

Session  of  January  3,  1831 

January  3,  1832 

January  7,  1833 

January  6,  1834 

January  4,  1836 

January  2,  1837 

January  I,  1838 

January  6,  1839 

January  6,  1840 

January  4,  1841 

March  5,  1842 

January  2,  1843 

January  I,  1844 

January  6,  1845 

November  17,  1845 


Session  of  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  November 

"  "  December 


23,  1846 
22,  1847 
27,  1848 

25,  1850 
22,  1852 

27,  i8S4 

26,  1855 

24,  1856 
22,  1858 

28,  1859 
26,  i860 
18,  1861 

17,  1862 
16,  1863 
21,  1864 

18,  1865 


52 


Session  of  November 
July 
January 
June 
January 
May 
January 
April 
February 
February 
February 
February 
February 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 

TABLE  VI— {Continued) 

14,  1866  Session  of  1885  September  30,  1885 
16,  1868  "  "  1887  September  30,  1886 
26,  1869  "        "  1889  September  30,  1887 

8,  1869  "        "  1891  September  30,  1888 

1870  "  "  1893  September  30,  1889 
23,  1870  "       "  1895  September  30,  1890 

1871  "  "  1897  September  30,  1891 
22,  1872  "  "  1899  September  30,  1892 
22,  1873  "  "  1901  September  30,  1893 
18,  1874  "        "  1903  September  30,  1894 

15,  1875  "  "  April  10,  1905  September  30,  1895 
IS,  1877  "  "  April  2,  1907  September  30,  1896 
20,  1879  "        "    April  6,  1909 

1881  "        "    April  4,  191 1 
1883 


September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 


30,  1897 

30,  1898 

30,  1899 

30,  1900 

30,  1901 

3°,  1902 

30,  1903 

31,  1904 
31,  1905 
31,  1906 
31,  1907 
31,  1908 


Henry  A.  Scomp,  King  Alcohol  in  the  Realm  of  King  Cotton  (a 
history  of  the  liquor  traffic  and  of  the  temperance  movement  in  Georgia 
from  1733  to  1887).    Chicago,  1888. 


GEORGIA 


Session  Laws 

Session  of  November  1810 

November  181 1 

November  1812 

November  1813 

November  1815 

November  1816 

November  1817 

November  1818 

November  1819 

November  1820 

April  1821 

November  1821 

November  1822 

November  1823 

November  1824 

May  1825 

November  1825 

November  1826 

November  1827 

November  1828 

November  1829 

November  1830 

November  1831 

November  1832 

November  1833 

November  1834 

November  1835 

November  1836 

November  1837 

November  1838 

November  1839 

November  1840 

November  1841 

November  1842 

November  1843 

November  1845 

November  1847 

November  1849 

November  1850 

November  1851 

November  1852 

November  1853 

November  1855 

November  1857 

November  1858 

November  1859 

November  i860 

November  1861 

November  1862 

March  1863 


Session  of  November 

"  March 

"        "  November 

"        "  February 

"        "  December 

■  November 

"  July 

"        "  January 

"        "  July 

"  July 

"         "  July 

"        "  January 

■        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 


1863 
1864 
1864 
1865 
1865 
1866 
4,  1868 
13,  1869 
1870 
1871 
1872 
1873 
1874 
187S 
1876 
1877 
1878-79 
1880-81 
1882-83 
1884-85 
1886 
1886-87 


KENTUCKY 


"    August 
"    August 


1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 

1893 
1894 
189S 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 

1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
191 1 


Reports   of   the   Comptroller 
General 
Report  for  the  year  ending — 
September  30,  1884 


Session  Laws 

Session  of  December  12, 
December  3, 
December  2, 
December  7, 
December  6, 
December  5, 
December  4, 
December  2, 
December  I, 
December  7, 
December  6, 
October  16, 
October  15, 
May  13, 

October        21, 
November      3, 
November      I, 
November      7, 
December      4, 
December      3, 
December       1, 
December       7, 
December      6, 
November      7, 
December       3, 
December     31, 
December     31, 
December    28, 
December 
December 
December 
December 
August 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 
December 
November 
November 
November 
December     31, 
December     31, 
December      7, 


808 
810 
811 
812 
813 
814 
815 
816 
817 
818 
819 
820 
821 
822 
822 
823 
824 
825 
826 
827 
828 
829 
830 
831 
832 
833 
834 
835 
836 

837 
838 
839 
840 
840 
841 
842 
843 
844 
845 
846 

847 
848 

849 
850 

8Si 
852 
853 
85S 
857 


Session  of  December 

"        "  January 

"  June 

"        "  September 

"  November 

"        "  February 

"        "  August 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"       "  December 

"        "  December 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"        "  November 

"        "  December 

"        "  December 

"        "  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"  August 

"        "  November 

January 

"        "  January 

"  March 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  August 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  March 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  January 


5,  1859 
17,  1861 

6,  1861 

2,  1861 

27,  1861 

12,  1862 

14,  1862 
8,  1863 

7,  1863 
4,  1865 

3,  1867 
2,  1867 

1869 

6,  1869 
1871 

4,  1871 
1873 

1,  1873 
31,  i875 
3i,  1877 
31,  1879 
3i,  1879 

28,  1881 
3i,  1883 
31,  1885 
30,  1887 
30,  1889 
30,  1891 
25,  1892 

15,  1892 

2,  1894 

7,  1896 

13,  1897 

4,  1898 

20,  1900 

28,  1900 

7,  1902 

2,  1904 

2,  190S 

2,  1906 

14,  1906 
7,  !9°8 
4,  1910 

1912 


Reports  of  State  Auditor 

Report  for  the  year  ending — 
October  10,  1869 
October  10,  1870 
Octobsr  10,  1871 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 


S3 


TABLE  VI- 

-(Continued) 

October 

10,  1872 

June 

30,  1892 

Sessino  of  May 

14,  1906 

Session  of  May               9,  1910 

October 

io,  1873 

June 

30,  1893 

11 

ti 

November 

11,  1907 

"        "    August         15,  1910 

October 

10,  1874 

June 

30,  1894 

a 

a 

May 

II,  1908 

"        "    November    28,  1910 

October 

10,  1875 

June 

30,  1895 

Octobsr 

10,  1876 

June 

30,  1896 

MARYLAND 

October 

10,  1877 

June 

30,  1897 

October 

10,  1878 

June 

30,  1898 

Session  Laws 

Session  of  January          1,  1868 

October 
October 

10,  1879 
10,  1880 

June 
June 

30,  1899 
30,  1900 

Session  of  November 

II                 If         XT 1 

3,  1800 

2,  1801 

1,  1802 
7,  1803 
5,  1804 

4.  1805 

3,  1806 

2,  1807 

"    January          5,  1870 
"        "    January         3,  1872 

October 
June 
June 
June 
June 

10,  1881 
30,  1882 
30,  1883 
30,  1884 
30,  1885 

June 
June 
June 
June 
June 

30,  1901 
30,  1902 
30,  1903 
30,  1904 
30,  1905 

II 
II 
tt 
it 
it 

tt 

ti 
it 
it 

iNovemoer 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 
November 
June 

"        "    January         7,  1874 
"        "    January         5,  1876 
"        "    January         7,  1878 
"        "    January         7,  1880 
"        "    January          4,  1882 

June 
June 

30,  1886 
30,  1887 

June 
June 

30,  1906 
30,  1907 

tt 
tt 

tt 
tt 

"        "    January          2,  1884 
"    January         6,  1886 

June 

30,  1888 

June 

30,  1908 

9,  1809 

"        "    January         4,  1888 

June 
June 

30,  1889 
30,  1890 

June 
June 

30,  1909 
30,  1910 

tt 

it 
tt 

November 

November 

June 

November 

December 

5,  1810 
4.  1811 

15,  1812 
2,  1812 

6,  1813 

"        "    January          1,  1890 
"        "    January         6,  1892 

June 

30,  1891                                         June 
LOUISIANA 

30,  191 1 

tl 

tt 

"        "    January         3,  1894 

"       "    January         1,  1896 

"    January         5,  1898 

Session  Laws 

Session  of  January 

21,  1856 

It 
If 

tt 

December 
December 

5,  1814 
4,  1815 

"        "    January         3,  1900 
"        "    March            6,  1901 

Session  of  July 

27,  1812 

*'    January 

19,  1857 

If 

tt 

December 

2,  1816 

"        "    January          1,  1902 

ft 

"    November 

23,  1812 

"        "    January 

18,  1858 

If 

" 

December 

1,  1817 

"        "    January         6,  1904 

ff 

"    January 

3.  1814 

"    January 

17,  1859 

ft 

tt 

December 

7,  1818 

"        "    January         3,  1906 

It 

"    November 

10,  1814 

"        "    January 

6,  i860 

ff 

it 

December 

6.  1819 

"        "    January          1,  1908 

tt 

"    January 

3,  1816 

"    January 

21,  1861 

" 

" 

December 

4,  1820 

"        "    January         5,  1910 

" 

"     November 

18,  1816 

"        "    December 

1862 

ff 

n 

December 

3,  1821 

It 

"    January 

5,  1818 

"        "    January 

1863 

ff 

it 

December 

2,  1822 

Reports    of    the   Comptroller 

tt 

"    January 

5,  1819 

"    May 

4,  1863 

ff 

" 

December 

1,  1823 

the  Treasury 

tt 

"    January 

3,  1820 

"     October 

4,  1864 

" 

" 

December 

6,  1824 

Report  for  the  year  ending — 

tt 

"    November 

20,  1820 

"        "     November 

3,  1865 

" 

" 

December 

26,  1825 

December      1,  1852 

tt 

"    January 

7,  1822 

"        "    January 

22,  1866 

ff 

tl 

December 

25,  1826 

September  30,  1853 

tt 

"    January 

6,  1823 

"        "    January 

28,  1867 

ff 

a 

December 

3i,  1827 

September  30,  1854 

tt 

"    January 

6,  1824 

"        "    June 

1867 

ff 

tt 

December 

29,  1828 

September  30,  1855 

it 

"    November 

IS,  1824 

"        "    June 

29,  1868 

ff 

tt 

December 

28,  1829 

September  30,  1856 

tt 

"    January 

2,  1826 

"        "    January 

4,  1869 

ff 

it 

December 

29,  1831 

September  30,  1857 

tt 

"    January 

1,  1827 

"    January 

8,  1870 

ff 

" 

December 

31,  1832 

September  30,  1858 

It 

"    January 

7,  1828 

"        "     March 

7,  1870 

II 

it 

December 

29,  1833 

September  30,  1859 

tt 

"    December 

8,  1828 

"        "    January 

2,  1871 

If 

tt 

December 

29,  1834 

September  30,  i860 

It 

1829-30 

"    January 

1,  1872 

ff 

" 

December 

28,  1835 

September  30,  1861 

it 

"    January 

4,  1830 

"        "    December 

9,  1872 

ff 

ff 

December 

26,  1836 

September  30,  1862 

It 

"    January 

31,  1831 

"        "    January 

5,  1874 

ff 

ff 

December 

25,  1837 

September  30,  1863 

it 

"    November 

14,  1831 

"        "    January 

4,  i87S 

ff 

tf 

December 

30,  1838 

September  30,  1864 

U 

"    January 

2,  1832 

"        "    April 

14,  187S 

" 

ff 

December 

30,  1839 

September  30,  1865 

tt 

"    January 

7,  1833 

"        "    January 

3,  1876 

ff 

ff 

December 

28,  1840 

September  30,  1866 

H 

"    December 

9,  1833 

"        "    January 

1,  1877 

ff 

ff 

March 

24,  1841 

September  30,  1867 

tt 

"    January 

5,  183S 

"    March 

2,  1877 

ff 

if 

December 

27,  1841 

September  30,  1868 

tt 

"    January 

4,  1836 

"        "    January 

7,  1878 

" 

ff 

December 

26,  1842 

September  30,  1869 

U 

"    January 

2,  1837 

"        "    January 

6,  1879 

ff 

tf 

December 

25,  1843 

September  30,  1870 

tt 

"    December 

11,  1837 

"        "    January 

12,  1880 

ff 

ft 

December 

30,  1844 

September  30,  1871 

It 

"    January 

7,  1839 

"    December 

5,  1881 

ff 

tf 

December 

29,  1845 

September  30,  1872 

It 

"    January 

6,  1840 

"        "    December 

26,  1881 

ff 

ft 

December 

28,  1846 

September  30,  1873 

" 

"    January 

4,  1841 

"    May 

8,  1882 

ff 

ff 

December 

27,  1847 

September  30,  1874 

tt 

"    December 

13.  1841 

"        "    May 

12,  1884 

ff 

ff 

December 

31,  1849 

September  30,  1875 

tt 

"    January 

2,  1843 

"        "    May 

10,  1886 

ff 

if 

January 

7,  1852 

September  30,  1876 

ti 

"    January 

1,  1844 

"        "    May 

14,  1888 

ff 

" 

January 

5,  1853 

September  30,  1877 

tl 

"    January 

6,  1845 

"    May 

12,  1890 

ff 

ff 

January 

4,  1854 

September  30,  1878 

it 

"    December 

9,  1846 

"    May 

9,  1892 

" 

ff 

January 

2,  1856 

September  30,  1879 

tt 

"    January 

11,  1847 

"    May 

14,  1894 

tt 

ff 

January 

6,  1858 

September  30,  1880 

It 

"    January 

17,  1848 

"    April 

11,  1896 

tt 

ft 

January 

4,  i860 

September  30,  1881 

tt 

"    December 

4,  1848 

"    May 

16,  1898 

tt 

ff 

April 

26,  1861 

September  30,  1882 

tt 

"    January 

21,    l8SO 

"    August 

8,  1899 

tt 

ff 

December 

3,  1861 

September  30,  1883 

ff 

"    January 

19,    1852 

"        '*    May 

14,  1900 

tt 

ff 

January 

6,  1864 

September  30,  1884 

tt 

"    January 

17,    1853 

"    May 

12,  1902 

" 

tf 

January 

4,  1865 

September  30,  1885 

tt 

"    January 

l6,    1854 

"        "     December 

io,  1003 

tt 

" 

January 

10,  1866 

September  30,  1886 

It 

"    January 

15,    1855 

"    May 

9,  1904 

tt 

ft 

January 

2,  1867 

September  30,  1887 

of 


54 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


TABLE  VI- (Continued) 


September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 
September 


30,  1888 

30,  1889 

30,  1890 

30,  1891 

30,  1892 

30,  1893 

30,  1894 

30,  189S 

30,  1896 

30,  1897 

30,  1898 

30,  1899 

30,  1900 

30,  1901 

30,  1902 

30,  1903 

30,  1904 

30,  1905 

30,  1906 

30,  1907 

30,  1908 

30,  1909 

30,  1910 

30,  191 1 


The  Baltimore  Sun  Almanac 


1885 


1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
189S 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1001 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
191 1 
1912 


MISSISSIPPI 


Session  Laws 
Session  of  December 

"    February 
"        "    November 

"  October 
"        "     December 

"  January 
"  "  January 
"  "  January 
"        "    January 


1804 
18,  1810 
S,  1810 
1817 
1824 
1,  1827 
7,  1828 
5,  1829 
4>  1830 
November  15,  1830 
November  21,  1831 
January  7,  1833 

November    16,  1833 


February 

1836 

April 

1837 

January 

1838 

January 

7,  1839 

January 

1840 

January 

1 841 

January 

1842 

January 

1843 

January 

1844 

January 

1846 

January 

1848 

January 

1850 

November 

1850 

January 

1852 

October 

1852 

January 

2,  1854 

January 

1856 

December 

1856 

November 

1857 

October 

1858 

November 

1859 

November 

i860 

January 

1861 

July 

1861 

Session  of  November 

"        "  December 

"        "  November 

"        "  March 

"        "  August 

"        "  February 

"  October 

"  October 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  December 

"        '  January 

"        "  July 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  April 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  January 


11, 
1, 
2, 

21, 
20, 

5, 
27, 
4, 
2, 
8, 
6, 
3, 
8, 
5, 
3, 
7, 
S, 
2, 

7, 
27, 
4, 
2, 
7, 
5, 
2, 
7, 
4, 


861 
862 
863 
864 
864 
865 
865 
866 
867 
870 
871 
872 
873 
874 
874 
875 
875 
876 

877 
878 
880 
882 


890 
892 
894 
896 

897 
898 
900 
902 
904 
906 
908 
910 


Reports  of  Auditor  of  Public 

Accounts 
Report  for  the  year  ending — 

December  31,  1872 

December  31,  1873 

December  31,  1874 

December  31,  1875 

December  31,  1876 

December  31,  1877 

December  31,  1878 

December  31,  1879 

December  31,  1880 

December  31,  1881 

December  31,  1882 

December  31,  1883 

December  31,  1884 

December  31,  1885 

December  31,  1886 

December  31,  1887 

December  31,  1888 

NORTH 

Session  Laws 

Session  of  November  1821 

"    November    18,  1822 

"        "    November    17,  1823 

"        "    November    15,  1824 

"        "    November    21,  1825 

"        "    December     25,  1826 

"        "    November    19,  1827 

"        "    November    17,  1828 

"        "     November    16,  1829 

"        "    November    15,  1830 

"        "    November    21,  1831 

"        "    November    19,  1832 

"    November    18,  1833 

"        "    November    17,  1834 

"        "    November    16,  183S 

"        "    November    21,  1836 

"    November    19,  1838 

"        "    November    16,  1840 

"        "    November    21,  1842 

"        "    November    18,  1844 

"    November    16,  1846 

"        "    November    20,  1848 

"        "    November    18,  1850 

-        "  1852 

•        "  I8S4-5S 

"        '*  1856-57 

1858-59 
"        *'  1859 

1860-61 

1861 

1862-63 
"    July  18,  1863 

1863 

1864 

1864-65 

1865 

1865-66 

1866 
"        "  1866-67 

Pocket  Manual  for  North  Carolina  for  191 1. 


December 

31, 

1889 

December 

31, 

1890 

December 

31, 

1891 

December 

31, 

1892 

September 

30, 

1893 

September 

30, 

1894 

September 

30, 

1895 

September 

30, 

1896 

September 

30, 

1897 

September 

30, 

1898 

September 

30, 

1899 

September 

30, 

1900 

September 

30, 

190 1 

September 

30, 

1902 

September 

30, 

1903 

September 

30, 

1904 

September 

30, 

1905 

September 

30, 

1906 

September 

30, 

1907 

September 

30, 

1908 

CAROLINA 

Session  of  July 

1, 

1868 

'*    November 

i6, 

1868 

"        "    November 

15, 

1869 

"        "     November 

16, 

1870 

"        "    November 

20, 

1871 

"        "    November 

18, 

1872 

"        "    November 

17, 

1873 

"        "    November 

16, 

1874 

"    November 

19, 

1876 

"        "    January 

8, 

1879 

n       ti 

1879-80 

"        "     March 

5, 

1880 

"        "    January 

5, 

1881 

"        "    January 

3, 

1883 

"        "    January 

7, 

1885 

"        "    January 

5, 

1887 

"        "    January 

9, 

1889 

"        "    January 

8, 

1891 
1893 

<(        a 

1895 

11        it 

1897 

a        11 

1899 

11        tt 

1900 

"        "    January 

9, 

1901 

"        "    January 

7, 

1903 

"        "    January 

4, 

1905 

"        "    January 

9, 

1907 

"        "    January 

21, 

1908 

"        "    January 

6, 

1909 

"        "    January 

4, 

191 1 

Reports  of  the  State  Auditor 

Report  for  the  year  ending — 

November  30,  1901 

November  30,  1902 

November  30,  1903 

November  30,  1904 

November  30,  1005 

November  30,  1906 


(1912) 


SOUTH   CAROLINA 

Session  Laws  ••        "  December  1831 

Session  of  December  1829  "        "  December  1832 

"    December  1830  "        "  December  1833 


>>    1      .  ■ , 


TABLES  AND  ILLUSTRATIONS 


TABLE  VI— {.Continued) 


55 


Session  of  December 

"        "  December 

"■  December 

"  December 

"  December 

"  December 

"  December 

"  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"  December 

"        "  December 

"       "  December 

"        "  December 

"        "  December 

"        "  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"        "  December 

"  December 

"  November 

"  December 

"  December 

"        "  February 

"        "  October 


"        "    July 

"    November 

"    November 

"    November 

"    November 

"        "    November 

"        "    November 

"    November 

"    November 

"        "    November 

"    April  24, 

November 

November    26, 

November    25, 

November    23, 

"        "    November    22, 

"    November    28, 

"        "    June  27, 

"        "    November    27, 

"        "    November    25, 
u       11 


a  it 


it  it 


ti  it 


November    24, 


Session  Laws 

Session  of  September  19, 
"    September 

"    September  16, 

"    October  5, 

"    October  3, 

"    October  2, 

"        "    October  7, 

"    October  4, 

"    October  S, 

"    October  2, 

"    October  6, 


1834 
183S 
1836 

1837 
1838 

1839 
1840 
1841 
1842 

1843 
1844 

184S 
1846 

1847 
1848 
1849 
1850 
1851 
1852 
1853 
1854 
i8S5 
1856 

1857 
1858 

1859 

i860 

1861 

1862 

1863 

1863 

1864-65 

1866 

1868 

1868 

1869 

1870 

1871 

1872 

1873 

1874 

187S 

1876 

1877 
1877 
1878 
1879 
1880 
1881 
1882 
1882 
1883 
1884 
1885 


It  tl 


It  II 


11  a 


ti  it 


a  it 


Session  of  November  23,  1886 

"       "    November  22,  1887 

"    November  28,  1888 

"    November  26,  1889 

"        "    November  25,  1890 

"        "    November  24,  1891 

"        "    November  22,  1892 

November  28,  1893 

"    November  27,  1894 

"    January  14,  1896 

"    January  12,  1897 

"    January  IX,  1898 

"    January  io,  1899 

January  9,  1900 

"    January  8,  1901 

"    January  14,  1902 

"    January  13,  1903 

"    January  12,  1904 

"    January  10,  1905 

"    January  9,  1906 

"    January  8,  1907 

"    January  14,  1908 

January  12,  1909 

January  II,  1910 

January  10,  191 1 

(1912) 

Reports  of  the  State  Dispensary 

to  the  Board  of  Control 
Report  for  1893 
"  "  1894 
"  "  1895 
"  1896 
"  "  1897 
"  "  1898 
-        "    1899 

Reports  of  the  State  Dispensary 

to  the  Board  of  Directors 

Report  for  1900 

"        "    1901 

"    1902 

"        "    1903 

"        -    1904 

"    1905 

"        "    1906 

Reports  of  the  Dispensary 

Auditor 

'Report  for  1907 

"        "  1908 

"        "  1909 

"        "  1910 

"  1911 


TENNESSEE 


1831 
1832 
1833 
183S 
1836 
1837 
1839 
1841 
1842 
1843 
184S 


Session  of  October 

"  October 

"  October 

"        "  October 

"  October 

"  October 

"  October 

"        "  January 

"  April 


"  April 


4.  1847 

4,  1849 
6,  1851 
3,  1853 
1,  1855 

5,  1857 
3,  i8S9 

1861 
1861 
1861-62 
1864-65 
3,  1865 


Session  of  October  2,  1865 

July  1866 

November  5,  1866 

October  7,  1867 

July  27,  1868 

October  9,  1868 

October  4,  1869 

May  9,  1870 

December  5,  1870 

October  I,  1871 

March  12,  1872 

January  4,  1873 

January  1875 

January  1877 

January  1879 

December  16,  1879 

January  1881 

December  7,  1881 

April  18,  1882 

January  1883 

January  1885 

May  25,  1885 

January  1887 

January  1889 

February  1890 

January  1891 

August  31,  1891 

January  1893 

January  1895 

January  1897 

January  1898 

January  1899 

January  1901 

January  1903 

January  1905 

January  1907 

January  1909 

February  191 1 

Reports  of  Comptroller  of  the 

Treasury 
Report  for  the  year  ending — 

October  1,  1867 


(2  yrs.)  October 

1, 

[869 

June           30, 

[871 

October 

1. 

[872 

(2  yrs.)  October 

1. 

1874 

(2  yrs.)  December 

[9, 

[876 

December 

19, 

(877 

December 

19. 

1878 

December 

19. 

[879 

December 

19, 

1880 

December 

19, 

1881 

December 

19. 

1882 

December 

19. 

1883 

December 

19, 

1884 

December 

19, 

[885 

December 

19, 

[886 

December 

19. 

1887 

December 

19, 

1888 

December 

19, 

[889 

December 

19. 

1890 

December 

19, 

1891 

December 

19, 

[892 

December 

[9. 

[893 

December 

[9. 

[894 

December 

19, 

[895 

December 

[9, 

[896 

December 

19, 

1897 

December 

19, 

[898 

December 

19, 

1899 

December 

19, 

[900 

December 

t9, 

[901 

December 

19. 

[902 

December 

19, 

[903 

December 

19, 

[904 

December 

9, 

[905 

December 

9, 

1906 

December 

9- 

[907 

December 

9, 

[908 

December 

19, 

[909 

December 

19, 

[910 

December 

19- 

[911 

Report  of  the  Special  Committee  on  Wholesale  and  Retail  Liquor 
Dealers.    T.  J.  Bonner,  Chm.,  in  House  Journal,  1885,  p.  729. 


TEXAS 


Session  Laws 

Session  of  April  5,  1838 

"        "  January  1839 

"        "  December  10,  1840 

"        "  November  15,  1841 

"        "  December  26,  1842 

"        "  December  19,  1843 

"        "  December  16,  1844 

"  February  28,  1846 

"        "  December  1847 

"        "  November  20,  1849 

"  August  1850 

"        "  November  20,  1850 

"        "  November  24,  1851 

"  January  25,  1853 

"        "  November  7,  1853 

"  November  5,  1855 

"        "  July  7,  1856 

"        "  November  12,  1857 

"        "  November  21,  1859 


Session  of  November  21,  i860 

"        "  January  20,  1861 

"        "  November  21,  1861 

"        "  February  9,  1863 

"        "  November  16,  1863 

"  May  20,  1864 

"       '*  November  7,  1864 

"        "  August  23,  1866 

"  May  13,  1870 

"  January  20,  1871 

"        "  September  22,  1871 

"        "  January  14,  1873 

"        "  January  13,  1874 

"  January  12,  1875 

"  May  18,  1876 

"        "  January  14,  1879 

"  June  10,  1879 

"        "  January  n,  1881 

"  April  6,  1882 

"  January  9,  1883 


56 


THE  SALE  OF  LIQUOR  IN  THE  SOUTH 


Session  of  January 

"       "  January 

"       "  January 

"  April 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  March 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  September 

"        "  January 

"        "  May 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

H.  A.  Ivy,  Rum  on 
tion  in  the  Lone  Star 


8,  1884 
13,  188s 
11,  1887 
16,  1888 

8,  1889 

3,  1891 

4,  1892 
10,  1893 

8,  1895 

i,  1895 

2,  1897 

22,  1897 

10,  1899 

27,  1900 


Session  of  January 

"  August 

"        "  September 

"        "  January 

"  April 

"  January 

"  April 

"  January 

"  April 

"        "  January 

"        "  March 

"        "  April 

"        "  January 


TABLE  VI 

8,  1901 

16,  1901 

5,  1901 

13,  1903 

2,  1903 

10,  1905 

IS,  1905 

8,  1907 

12,  1907 
2,  1909 

13,  1909 
12,  1909 
10,  191 1 


— {Continued) 


the  Run  in  Texas,  a  Brief  History  of  Prohibi- 
State.    Dallas,  1910. 


VIRGINIA 

, 

Session  Laws 

Sessior 

of                             1870 

Session  of  December 

6,  1830 

(i 

1871 

tt                  It 

December 

5,  1831 

tt 

1872 

tt          tt 

December 

3,  1832 

tt 

1873 

tt             ti 

December 

2,  1833 

tt 

1874 

tt             tt 

December 

1,  1834 

tt 

187s 

tt             tt 

December 

7,  183S 

tt 

1876 

tt             tt 

December 

5,  1836 

tt 

1877 

tt             tt 

January 

1,  1838 

tt 

1878 

tt             tt 

January 

7,  1839 

tt 

1879-80 

tt             tt 

December 

2,  1839 

tt 

1880 

ft             tt 

December 

6,  1841 

n 

1881-82 

tt             tt 

December 

S,  1842 

tt 

1882 

ft             tt 

1843 

tt 

1883-84 

ft             tt 

1844 

tt 

1884 

tt             tt 

1845 

tt 

1884-85 

tt             tt 

1846 

tt 

1885-86 

ft             tt 

1847 

tt 

1887 

ft             ft 

1848 

tt 

1887-88 

tt             tt 

1849 

tt 

1889-90 

ft             ft 

1850 

tt 

1891-92 

ft             tt 

1851 

tt 

1891-92 

ft             tt 

1852 

tt 

1893-94 

tt             ft 

1853 

tt 

1895-96 

ft             tt 

1854 

tt 

1897-98 

ft             tt 

185S 

» 

1899 

tt             tt 

1856 

tt 

"                              1900 

ft             ft 

1857 

tt 

1901 

ft             tt 

1858 

tt 

"                              1901-02 

tt             tt 

1859 

tt 

"                              1902-03 

ft             tt 

i860 

tt 

1904 

ft             tt 

1861 

tt 

1906 

ft             ti 

1862 

tt 

1908 

ft             ft 

1863 

tt 

"    January       12,  1910 

tt             ti 

1864 

ft             tt 

1865 

Reports 

of  the  Auditor  of  Public 

tt             tt 

1866 

Accounts 

tt             tt 

1867 

Report  for  the  year  ending — 

1868 

September  30,  1874 

1869 

September  30,  1875 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

September 

April 

April 


30,  1876 
30,  1877 
30,  1878 
30,  1879 
30,  1880 
30,  1881 
30,  1882 
30,  1883 
30,  1884 
30,  1885 
30,  1886 
30,  1887 
30,  1888 
30,  1889 
30,  1890 
30,  1891 
30,  1892 
30,  1893 


April 

30,  1894 

April 

30,  1895 

April 

30,  1896  1 

June 

30,  1897 

June 

30,  1898 

June 

30,  1899 

June 

30,  1900 

June 

30,  1901 

June 

30,  1902 

June 

30,  1903 

June 

30,  1904 

June 

30,  1905 

June 

30,  1906 

June 

30,  1907 

June 

30,  1908 

June 

30,  1909 

June 

30,  1910 

June 

30,  191 1 

WEST  VIRGINIA 


Session  Laws 


Session  of  July 

"  December 

"  "  May 

"  "  December 

"  "  June 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

"  "  June 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

"  "  January 

tt  tt 

"        "  January 

"  January 

"        "  January 

"  January 

"  January 

"  January 

"  January 

"        "  January 

"        "  January 

"  January 

"        "  January 

"       "  January 

"  January 

"  January 

"        "  January 

"  January 

"  January 

"  January 


1,  1861 

2,  1861 
6,  1862 
4,  1862 

20,  1863 
19,  1864 

17,  1865 

16,  1866 

15,  1867 

21,  1868 
2,  1868 

19,  1869 

18,  1870 

17,  1871 

16,  1872 
1872-73 

13,  187S 

10,  1877 

8,  1879 
12,  1881 

11,  1882 

10,  1883 

14,  1885 

12,  1887 

9,  1889 
14,  1891 

11,  1893 
9,  1895 

13,  1897 
II,  1899 

9,  1901 

14,  1903 
26,  1904 
11,  1905 


Session  of  January  1907 

It  tt         T 

June  1907 

"        "    January  1909 

"    January  191 1 

"     May  16,  191 1 

Reports  of  Auditor  of  Public 
Accounts 


Report  for  the  year 

ending — 

Apri 

I  30,  1886 

June 

30,  1888 

June 

30,  1889 

June 

30,  1890 

June 

30,  1891 

June 

30,  1892 

June 

30,  1893 

June 

30,  1894 

June 

30,  1895 

June 

30,  1896 

June 

30,  1897 

June 

30,  1898 

June 

30,  1899 

June 

30,  1900 

June 

30,  1901 

June 

30,  1902 

June 

30,  1903 

June 

30,  1904 

June 

30,  1905 

June 

30,  1906 

June 

30,  1907 

June 

30,  1908 

June 

30,  1909 

June 

30,  1910 

June 

30,  191 1 

1  Table  30  omitted  from  the  Report  in  1896. 


VITA. 


The  writer  of  this  dissertation,  Leonard  Stott  Blakey, 
was  born  in  Racine  County,  Wisconsin,  on  April  15,  1881 
When  he  was  three  years  of  age  his  parents  moved  to 
northwestern  Iowa.  Here  the  writer  received  his  acad- 
emic training,  graduating  from  the  Estherville  High 
School  in  May,  1900.  In  September  of  that  year  he 
entered  Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wisconsin,  and  gradu- 
ated with  the  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  in  the  spring 
of  1904.  The  next  three  years  were  spent  as  instructor 
in  mathematics  and  physical  science  in  secondary  schools. 
In  July,  1907,  he  entered  the  summer  school  of  the 
University  of  Chicago.  Here  he  pursued  courses  in 
Economics  and  Sociology.  In  the  fall  of  that  year 
he  entered   Columbia    University   as    Scholar    in    Eco- 


nomics and  Social  Science.  The  following  year  he  held  the 
Schiff  Fellowship  in  the  same  department.  Since  complet- 
ing a  three-year  course  of  graduate  study  in  Columbia 
University,  he  has  been  instructor  in  Economics  and  Sta- 
tistics in  Tufts  College,  Massachusetts,  and  Associate  Pro- 
fessor of  Economics  and  Sociology  in  Dickinson  College. 
During  the  three  years  of  residence  at  Columbia  Univer- 
sity, the  writer  took  courses  under  Professors  Frank- 
lin H.  Giddings,  John  B.  Clark,  Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman, 
Henry  R.  Seager,  Henry  L.  Moore,  Franz  Boas,  and  Liv- 
ingston Farrand,  and  attended  the  seminar  in  Sociology 
under  Professor  Giddings,  the  seminar  in  Economics  under 
Professors  Clark  and  Seligman,  and  the  seminar  in  Anthro- 
pology under  Professor  Boas. 

57 


I'XIVERSITY   OP    CALIFORNIA 
LIBRARY 


Due  two  weeks  after  date. 


MAR  28  1914 


30m  7,'12 


y-,st& 


